I � ISSN 0542-5492 Fifth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE 30 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker TUESDAY, 27 JANUARY, 1981, 10:00 a.m. Office of the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON,Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell . DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY,H on. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Hon.Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib lnd

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMM ITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 Time - 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN - Hon. Harry Graham (Birtle-Russell). MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I believe we have a quorum. The Rules Committee, I believe, has been issued with some proposed items for discussion by the Rules Committee. Now these are just items that the Clerk and myself have jotted down. We don't necessarily have to follow that agenda at all, if there's anything else that anyone wants to bring up please do so.

From time to time there have been things we have noted that perhaps should be clarified or we need further advice or guidance on so we have marked them down. One of the main concerns occurred before the House opened when we had a meeting with the people that provide the television. That meeting was held in my office at 2 o'clock on December 2nd. People that were at the meeting were myself; Mr. Reeves; Mark Stefanson; Steve Halinda; Germain Massicotte of CBWFT; Stu Fawcett of CKY; Robert Foskett, Greater Winnipeg Cablevision; Richard Edwards of Videon and Chris Newton of Westman Media Co-Op.

The main concern that they had was the matter of lighting in the House. Mr. Foskett brought this matter up and he noted that everyone agrees that the current amount of lighting in the House is unsatisfactory and it needs to be upgraded. He mentioned the fact that Mr. Hawley of the CBC Lighting Department has offered his services to assist in improving the situation. Mr. Foskett specifically asked if the government had reconsidered its position and would now be willing to entertain the notion of installing better lighting in the House. I note here that while it may be just a small item, Mr.

Foskett asked whether it was the government, actually it should have been the Legislative Assembly. "Mr. Graham said there appears to be some confusion about the difference between the government and the Legislative Assembly and he proceeded to make the distinction. The Rules Committee has jurisdiction over the House and he reiterated the committee's position that TV in the House not incur at any cost to the public purse." Now that was the decision that was made by the Rules Committee in the past.

I suppose it could be changed in the future but so far this committee has maintained that position. it's always open for debate. "Following a discussion the consortium considered approaching the House Rules Committee to receive their approval to undertake a lighting experiment in the House". Mr. Halinda stated that "an experiment would not be worthwhile at this time unless there was some indication that it would be successful". Concern was also expressed about the Manitoba Telephone System's transmission of the TV in the House signalled directly to Westman Media in Brandon.

Some of the members of the consortium question why Westman was receiving this service 1 free of charge from the Crown corporation, the Crown corporation which incidentally, is not a signatory to the original agreement on cost sharing. Mention was also made of Portage Cablevision and their request for membership in the consortium. Mr. Halinda said he was under the impression that Portage was a member of the consortium. However, other members said they had not been so apprised.

As a result of that meeting, I received a letter on December 19 from Robert Foskett, who is a member of the legislative television consortium and I would like to read it to you at this time. "The Honourable Harry Graham. Dear Sir: During the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly there were comments in the media and among members of the Assembly concerning the quality of television pictures originating within the Legislative Chamber. In response to these comments a study was undertaken by Mr.

Robert Hawley, technical producer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of Winnipeg, to evaluate and determine what measures were necessary to improve the productions. After an analysis of the entire production process, it was concluded that the equipment used by the legislative television consortium is state of the art network quality." Whatever that means. "And that the only way to improve the picture quality would be to upgrade the existing lighting system within the Chamber.

This improvement may be accomplished by using long-life metal allied luminaries which in order to maintain the aesthetic quality of the Chamber should be permanently installed at ceiling height in the arches over the gallery. The cost of such equipment is estimated to be between 5,000 and 6,000 dollars. The installation of these lights will result in reduced contrast ratio within the Chamber. This will in turn improve the appearance of the members and may give added personal advantage of reduced eyestrain.

We understand the present policy which states that televising of the Manitoba Legislature must be done at no expense to the public purse. At the December 2 meeting between yourselves and the television consortium, you expressed an openness to present this issue to the House Rules Committee and suggested that we update our original letter of April 16, 19 80. We feel that the televising of the political process can only expand in the near future and that the Manitoba Legislature should consider upgrading to meet these public needs.

The Legislatures of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have already moved in that direction. We feel that it is in the government's best interest to consider this upgrading in the Chamber lighting to modern standards. The CBC has once again offered to temporarily light the Chamber during the regular televising of question period to allow evaluation of the improved lighting. The results of such an experiment would be of great value to the Members of the House Rules Committee prior to their hearing of this matter. We would be pleased to arrange for the lights to be set up.

If you feel that such an experiment can be accommodated during the

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 present sitting please contact Mr. Andy Arnot, (?) our newly elected Chairman of the Legislative Television Consortium. Yours Truly, Robert Foskett". I give you that for your consideration at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green MR. SIDNEV GREEN (lnkster): Mr.

Chairman, I'm not expressing this as a great concern but I think that probably the time that's spent in reading the letter is more than the time that's necessary to deal with it because I don't think that it is a vital issue with anybody except, and I respect the artistic sensitivity of the people who are doing the work and see what they don't consider to be good material. I don't think that it's recognized by that many people in the public and certainly it's of no concern to the MLAs.

My only concern with regarding getting improvements on the previous discussion was with respect to heat and I said, il there's more heat I don't want more light; if there is not more heat I don't mind more light; and if the lighting system in the Legislative Assembly is dull and can be improved at an expenditure of 5,000 dollars and it will be a brighter system but it won't be hotter, then I personally would have no objection.

The expense of 5,000 dollars is a capital expense so we're talking about something like 60 dollars a year to have a lighter Assembly which I think is hardly worth time spending talking about. If it will give us a lighter Assembly and it won't be hotter then I would certainly not have any objection, I would support the opporunity of the people to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, I think Mr.

Green has expressed the only concern that I have heard discussed by members of the Legislature about the offer and on that basis and suggested I think that it be an experiment, I see no objection to it being done on an experimental basis. You can't tell what the effects of the new lights will be until they're in operation. lt may be that they will, as Mr. Green says, be hotter, be distracting to members that they may within a day or two ask that the lights be removed but we'll have to determine that when they are put up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. ARNOLD BROWN (Rhineland): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering about the appearance of this extra equipment that is to be installed. I think that if this was going to be an unsightly appearance and I don't know of anybody over here, around this table certainly, who knows what equipment is going to be installed but I would say that this should possibly be one of our concerns. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have no particular concern about the cost because as Mr. Green stated, it's minimal. We've already made that decision in respect to it being not a charge to the public purse.

The only question that I have in my mind is, I concur that it shouldn't create 2 an uncomfortable situation for the members of the Legislative Assembly, and I'm not concerned so much with the heat because I think we probably can improve our air conditioning system or create a better atmosphere in that regard, but I'm also worried about the intensity of the light on the members.

I think that Chamber is there for us to work and create good legislation and other areas of concern for the public of Manitoba and we should be able to work without having to sit there with dark glasses on or any other discomfort that may arise. From the aesthetic point of view I can concur with Mr. Brown, that these things shouldn't protrude like a sore thumb and that may be another problem that will have to be looked at.

Now this experiment that we are supposed to approve for a week or whatever time it takes, would that be almost just as if it would be in the right place or would it just be temporary and not in the place that they suggest where it could be placed? MR. CHAIRMAN: I couldn't answer that question. MR. FOX: We'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Secondly, your other letter indicated in respect to Brandon getting a feed. Now I believe that is an internal problem between the media themselves. lt should be of no concern to us. We have agreed that all media should have equal access.

If Brandon is getting a feed, I can't see any objection to it. I also can't see any objection to Portage la Prairie getting a feed when they have a service that they can provide to the public in the Portage la Prairie area. Whether it's done through cameras that belong to the government or not, I wasn't aware but I am saying that we agreed that all the media would have equal access and I think that criterion should remain. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the matter with the internal thing has been rectified by themselves. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, just one thing that perhaps I misunderstood.

The experiment would be conducted by the media and they would hopefully do it in such a way that it would best serve the interests of getting a change if a change is desirable. But if we have to make a capital expenditure of 5,000 or 6,000 thousand dollars to improve the facility, I had not understood that that would be a media expense, if it's going to be a capital improvement to the building. I didn't understand that part but I understood the experiment to be a media expense. MR. CHAIRMAN: I honestly believe that the Rules Committee hasn't got the right to dictate ... MR.

GREEN: I appreciate that we haven't got the right to expend money, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly recommend to the Minister of Government Services that if that's going to be an improvement to the building and an improvement to ourselves, if it's going to be a lighter Chamber, which will not at the same time be an inconvenience in the heat or any other way, then how would we require somebody else to foot the expenditure? I think that that would have to be reconsidered in terms of who pays for that.

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake. MR. DAVID SLAKE (Minnedosa): Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many members of the committee had an opportunity to catch the Wayne and Shuster Special on the weekend but they did a skit on the ratings in the House of Commons. The ratings on their telecasting was not that great so they had a delegation meet such as we're meeting here to discuss how they could improve their ratings and I think that would give you some idea of what this can lead to when we start worrying about the quality of picture and how good the show is coming out of the Chamber.

I agree with the Member for Kildonan when he says that we're there to do a particular job and not to project a TV image to the public or anyone else and I'm just afraid that if we get into too much of this it'll transpire to the spoof that they did on the House of Commons projection, such as Madam Speaker.

They journeyed down to some movie mogul in California to find out how to up their image and he put on a show for them and they had Madam Speaker coming in in long black stockings and it certainly improved the ratings of their show, and I just don't want to see us get into something like that if we start bringing in special lighting and whatnot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discusson? Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I take it there is agreement that the offer should be accepted, that the lights should be installed on an experimental basis and probably with your consent or under your direction, considering the concern that was expressed about the aesthetics of the Chamber. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? (Agreed) Okay, we'll then move on to another item and as you recall during the Throne Speech debate we did have a little problem when a member brought it to my attention that there was a camera taking pictures in the press gallery and had not been authorized to do so.

Since that time I have had correspondence with Mr. Murray Burt, the Managing Editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, who has indicated that they would certainly like to have the right to take still photographs in the Legislative Chamber and, if the members of the committee are agreeable, Mr. Burt is present and would like the opportunity to make a presentation. Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, that may not be necessary. The Clerk has kindly given to us a

summary of procedures of other Houses which appear to indicate that the only Legislative Chambers where photographs are allowed are in B.C with the prior consent of the Speaker; in Alberta where they are allowed from the press gallery unless found distracting by members of the House, flash photos not permitted; and in Ontario. That is I think just very recent information that Mr. Reeves has come up with.

I understand that an experiment was just started in the House of Commons at the beginning of last week to allow still cameras in the House and what I offer or suggest for discussion for the committee is that we allow photographs to be taken on an experimental basis on the same basis as the 3 House of Commons, which is also on an experimental basis. I don't object to Mr. Burt making a presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have no objection to Mr. Burt making a presentation. Would the members like to hear what Mr. Burt has to say? Mr. Steen. MR.

WARREN STEEN (Crescentwood): I'm sure that he's not going to be making a long, lengthy presentation and he is only going to talk to us for a few moments. I would suggest that we hear from the man. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? Mr. Burt, would you like to address the committee? MR. MURRAY BURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen. I don't have much to add to the request that the Legislature allow still photographers in the House. Of course, I would like it but it has to be put to the test of an experiment. I would expect that experiment to be successful. it's our intention not to be obtrusive.

I didn't do intensive research on the practice of other Houses because I think maybe this is a circumstance where Manitoba should be a leader. There are restrictions on the practice in Ontario that I wouldn't like to see here. The situation in the House of Commons as you say is still under test.

I think one of the things that has to be considered though is how a system would work here and what I proposed in my presentation is that we have a pool arrangement whereby anything taken by two photographers in the House is available to anyone else who wants them, any other members of the media who want the product of that shooting. At the same time I think where a representative of one medium is in the House, one newspaper is in the House, I think he should have exclusive right to that. That's essentially my position.

I have it written out if members would like to glance at it and I'll be able to answer any of your questions. MR. STEEN: I have a question to the delegate, Mr.

Chairman, and the fear that I think that all members would have is that the photographer would sit there in the gallery for moments on end and perhaps wait for a member who is not speaking or been recognized by the Speaker and addressing the Chamber, and the photographer waits and catches this member off guard, which I believe was done during the reading of the Throne Speech, that picture was published and I don't think that such pictures are in the best interests of members of the Legislature or the general public. it's my understanding that the rules in the House of Commons are that the still photography has to be taken of a member who has been recognized and is addressing the Legislature and it can be a shoulders and head photo.

Is that your understanding, sir, of the House of Commons' rules? MR. BURT: As I said, I'm not sure but I wouldn't like to operate under that restriction. MR. STEEN: Do you see the disadvantages that raised of a picture that was shown in the paper?

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. BURT: No, I think they're groundless. MR. STEEN: Do you think it's an advantage to your subscribers to have such pictures published in the paper? MR. BURT: I think there's a respect ... MR. STEEN: For the individual members? MR. BURT: I should think respect of important institutions like the Legislature derived from a familiarity and comfort by the public in that institution. I think if you deny them access that modern technology allows, then I think you're shortchanging your public.

By the same token, the television cameras are free to range far and wide, I understand, under amendments of the agreement of 1978. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. MR. J. R. (Bud) BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on the record the fact that a picture that appeared of myself in the Free Press in deep contemplation, I thought, was rather complimentary. MR. BURT: I thought so, too, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Because I was, you know, trying very hard to find something of significance in the Throne Speech. But Mr.

Chairman, I'm not a member of the committee but I would recommend that the committee accept the experimental basis without too many riders on it. If you're going to experiment, then experiment without too many riders and expect them to be responsible. As I had assumed in the first place that the media was responsible and would be familiar with the rules. I know I'm a little bit sticky sometimes on the rules but I think if we're going to change them we should allow them to change in an orderly fashion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know the reasons for some of the rules but when you go back and you look at them you usually find that there was some reason. I'm not concerned with having my picture taken. As a matter of fact, my concern is the other way, and as far as the poses, or being caught off guard, there are people in the gallery at all times and members of the Legislature should appreciate that, that they are in a fish bowl and they can be seen in all of their poses and with all of their warts and with all of their beauty marks, so I don't see that as a problem.

I am concerned with something else and I will raise it by asking what security we have with regard to the press gallery because this is a pretty open Legislature and I like it that way. I think that up until about three years ago even the side doors could be swung from the outside in and, as a matter of fact, we had a stranger in the House who walked right in and started to shout at us and, because of one incident, the doors don't swing inwards anymore from the hall which, to me, is perhaps necessary but unfortunate because we have been a very, very open Legislature. The same is true of the press gallery.

I 4 don't think that anybody stands outside the press gallery and says, you can't walk up these stairs. And we are going to maintain, I gather, the rule that the public can't take photographs. And although that sounds like a restriction . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. May I interject just a minute, Mr. Green. Is there any questions you want to ask of Mr. Burt? He is standing there and I ... MR. GREEN: That's true. I'm sorry, I had forgotten his presence. If there are no questions I'll continue with what I have to say after he's finished. MR. CHAIRMAN: Has anyone any further questions to ask of Mr. Burt? Mr.

Walding. MR. D. JAMES WALDING (St. Vital): I wonder if I might ask Mr. Burt if he would clarify the remarks he made about the sharing of pictures and the exclusivity of one photographer. MR. BURT: lt strikes me that the Legislature wouldn't function well if there were no limit put on the number of photographers circulating in its midst so I'm proposing that a limit of two be placed on it.

Now, presuming there could be three newspapers wanting to shoot in the Legislature that would leave one person out in the cold, so I'm proposing that the product of the two photographers that are shooting in the Legislature be made available to the newspaper that's excluded, on that particular day. lt would be a first come, first served basis. MR. WALDING: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGregor. MR. MORRIS McGREGOR (Virden): Mr. Chairman, then I would ask Mr.

Burt, for us who are out in the hustings and have many weeklies, would that be accommodated to weekly presses or the Canadian Press, whoever feeds the Weekly Newspaper Association? MR. BURT: If those weeklies take . . . MR. McGREGOR: Obviously they won't have a representative, one of your three, not likely. MR. BURT: If we're shooting in the Legislature we're obliged to provide Canadian Press with copies of what we take and if the weeklies subscribe to Canadian Press then they're entitled to those pictures. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

I don't know whether it's entirely etiquette but I, myself, have a question I would like to ask Mr. Burt. Mr. Burt, you have stated that you would like to see the pictures shared when there are two cameras there, but not when there is only one. Can you explain to me the difference and why you would not want the same rights to apply to one camera as you would when there's two? MR. BURT: I think when one newspaper is acting on instinct or good judgment that is not shown by the other it should have the sole proprietary rights to its efforts.

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: Yes, I'd like to follow that up, Mr. Burt. Would not, if you are looking for scoops by one newspaper, could that not also be perpetrated even if you are on a co-operative basis by time delays or some other methods. So if you have not the intention of really co-operating with all the media, in respect to sharing the photographs, isn't your premise in respect to one camera invalid? MR. BURT: No. Pool arrangements have worked honourably for years and years, 25 years I've been in the business. MR.

FOX: Fine, let's take that assumption, then why shouldn't it also apply to one camera? MR. BURT: Because if one newpaper has the wit to be on the scene of action and the other doesn't, then I think the paper with the wit to be there should benefit by that. MR. FOX: But if the arrangement is a co-operative arrangement, wouldn't you then suggest that instead of having two people there continually you share that responsibility and alternate and then pool? MR. BURT: No, there's no suggestion that we would be there continually. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: So I can clarify this matter in my mind, Mr.

Chairman. Mr. Burt, if the Free Press takes a picture under your arrangement with the Canadian Press it automatically becomes available to them? MR. BURT: Yes. MR. MERCIER: And if a weekly newspaper subscribes to Canadian Press it then automatically becomes available to them. MR. BURT: Yes they could. Of course Canadian press would have to file it but if they knew that a picture was taken they could ask Canadian press and we would be obliged to supply it. MR. MERCIER: What then, sir, is the disadvantage of not restricting photographs to two persons? MR.

BURT: Because Canadian press operates on a Winnipeg out basis. Anything that we provide to Canadian press is for use outside the return area of the Winnipeg Free Press. For example when the Tribune and the Free Press were filing their copy to Canadian press the Free Press saw none of the Tribune's file and the Tribune saw none of our file and the same applied with photographs. MR. MERCIER: I'm inclined firstly to the view that there should be restriction on the number of persons who want to take photographs under whatever rules there are. And your argument against that is? MR.

BURT: I was just thinking of the Legislature, Mr. Mercier. If you are happy to have an unrestricted number of photographers in the Legislature that's fine with us. 5 MR. MERCIER: I think the fact is there are a limited number of seats in the press gallery usually taken up, at least during question period which may very well be the main time that photographs would be taken, and the capacity of the press gallery will probably be the practical limiting factor. MR. BURT: I don't know if it's a practical limiting factor, I think it's an impractical limiting factor. MR. MERCIER: Why do you say that, sir? MR.

BURT: Because there are designated seats for reporters but there are not designated positions for photographers. So what you're suggesting essentially is that cram as many photographers in as is possible. We take our chances of course but I don't think that's terribly practical. MR. MERCIER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake. MR. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Probably Mr. Burt would know offhand how many of the Canadian weekly newspapers subscribe to the Canadian press. MR. BURT: No, sir, I don't. MR. BLAKE: You have no idea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

I want to take this opportunity then, Mr. Burt, to thank you for appearing this morning and for your expression of your concern and your request to the Rules Committee and I can assure you that the members will consider it and make their recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. MR. BURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Green, I believe you wanted to .. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was just dealing with probably the last part.

The fact is that the public will not be able to bring a camera into the gallery, there is no change there, and despite that sounding like a restriction it seems to me it probably has some validity. lt could be a problem and it only takes one problem to be a very serious problem. So the rule which appears to be universal that the public cannot take pictures and take cameras and point them at the members from the gallery appears to be universal rule I gather from Mr. Mercier and from the research that has been done.

So the only question is whether the press gallery will be aware that that is a rule and that they will somehow see to it that, and I expect that they will, that the fact that there is no guards or otherwise posted at the gallery, that they will be on the alert to see to it that nobody gets into the gallery to point a camera at members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fact that the present rules do discriminate against the

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 print media in that television cameras are allowed and photographs are not allowed. Obviously this will be a matter that will evolve and the rules will change over time as the House experiments with this. I made a suggestion at the beginning that the committee might consider allowing photographs to be taken on an experimental basis in the same way as the House· of Commons is allowing them and perhaps the committee would like to express some views on that suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier has made a suggestion that we ... Mr. Green MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that to me I can't see any reason for trying to maintain the ;·estrictions, about the lights, etc. I think that we can permit some designated media people, or permit media people to take photographs for the purpose of their employment and how they happen to catch us is how we are. The pictures hopefully will not lie and therefore what's the difference what they take? MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps members of the committee I think should be apprised, that the legislative press gallery as such is a membership that is not open to every member of the news media.

They have a list of members and that membership does change from year to year and those are the people that are designated as having access to the press gallery. Now there may be a problem that would come up if there is no member who is authorized to take pictures. How do they get access to the gallery if they're not a member of that press gallery? So I can see some problems developing in that respect. Perhaps some members who would have ... Mr. Fox, would you like to say something? MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I believe we have always, or at least within recent times that I'm aware of, agreed that all media should have equal access. The only reason we put some caveats on the TV media was because of this technical equipment involved and of course the intrusion into the Chamber that it would provide. I think we're dealing here again with the media and again we have a problem of equipment and space that it's going to take in the press gallery. I would suggest since we have agreed that the press gallery would discipline itself and stay within the bounds of good taste that we leave this matter entirely up to them.

We are providing the policy and the guidelines that we want equal access and we have no objection to cameras if they're not going to intrude upon our work and let the media discover amongst themselves what is the best method of utilizing the policy and principle that we have established. I don't think we should go into the nuts and bolts of saying which member of the press or which member of whatever media is entitled to be in the gallery, we'd be adjudicating continually.

I do believe that there was an incident in the House of Commons where one of the reporters had to have special permission simply because the media themselves couldn't make the arrangements. But in spite of that I say that this is a discipline. The Fourth Estate has a responsibility and I'm sure that they will find ways and means of providing access if this is a part of the media that is important to portray to the public. 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone anything further? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, the point has been raised that the space in the press gallery is somewhat limited.

This may work to the disadvantage of someone wishing to take photographs, that they cannot get into that particular vantage point. We haven't I think decided whether people who find themselves in that position can go into the public gallery and take still pictures. If we're going to say that then we come to the matter of whether members of the public can take pictures from the public gallery. Mr. Green has some concern about that, frankly, I don't share it with him.

Personally I would have no objection to any member of the public who is able to watch what goes on to be able to take a still picture as a record of what went on. I see the problem with noisy cameras and with flashes and I'm assuming that would not be permitted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone anything further on that respect. Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: A question through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Mercier. I'd ask him to repeat his statement of a moment ago. Unfortunately, I was talking to Mr. Slake and I didn't hear exactly what his original proposal was. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the proposal was that we allow the use of still photographs on an experimental basis in the same way as the House of Commons is presently involved in allowing them. With respect to your comment, Mr. Chairman, on I take it admittance to the press gallery that's, as far as I'm concerned, up to the press gallery. Certainly the Legislature is not involved in approving admission to the press gallery. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is though the problem of very limited space. Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has indicated that he'd like to have an experiment on the same basis as the House of Commons.

I was not aware that the members wanted those guidelines because here it says only head and shoulder photos of the member speaking; they must remain behind the curtain, etc. There is very little detail as to what those guidelines are. Now, if the Speaker has further guidelines as to what the experiment in the House of Commons is like, I was of the view that we wanted to place no restrictions on cameras. Let them do their work and if it's in poor taste it's the same as any reporter who writes an

article in poor taste, we can take it up with him and his editor. If the picture is in poor taste, I think it's the same thing. I do not think we should start censoring; I do believe we are asking them to work in good faith and we're giving them the privilege of being there. That's as much as a guideline I'd like to put because if you start crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i' you will be into a real can of worms again. I think the media has been responsible, occasionally some of their members have lapsed a little bit, after all they're human like

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 the rest of us but I do believe they are trying to do a good job and I have no fear that if the cameras are allowed to do their work they too will try and do it in good faith. If they don't we can always let them know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe in 1978 when we started with television we did it on an experimental basis and I would agree with Mr. Mercier that perhaps with still photography we should do it on an experimental basis.

If the House of Commons feels that they should have some guidelines like head and shoulders photos of members that are recognized speakers perhaps they have done it for a reason and I would support Mr. Mercier on such a motion or such a method of starting off in this vein. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if we go back to probably what precipitated this discussion we will see that they didn't want a head and shoulders photo of somebody speaking, they wanted a picture of a member sitting in his seat and that's the picture that was a problem.

Now why would we stop them from taking a picture of a member sitting in his seat? 1 mean it just doesn't make sense. The entire incident arises because they wanted to take a picture of somebody sitting and now we're saying, okay, we'll let them take a picture of somebody standing. 1t just doesn't make sense. I'm sure that Mr. Mercier is doing this because it's a starting point and he's looked at the House of Commons and said this is what they do but it just . . . MR. BLAKE: lt's the taking the picture of the member not sitting in his seat they worry about. MR. GREEN: Pardon me. MR.

BLAKE: lt's taking the picture of the member that's not sitting in his seat that ... MR. GREEN: Well, the fact is that at that time it was still his seat. He's still a member but has no seat so they could take pictures of him sitting in his office but the fact is that it seems to me that is not a particular meaningful distinction, given the circumstances under which this arose. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: Apropo to what Mr. Green has said. I believe the media is responsible and they will do their work well and if we start putting down severe guidelines they are going to circumvent them anyway.

They will take a wide-angle shot of a member standing and catch that which they want to include in it. So they will get around it if they want to. I believe that they will operate in good faith and we don't have to put any guidelines down. If we find they are not operating in good faith then it may be necessary, but let's cross our bridges when we come to them, not beforehand. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I believe there is a genuine consensus that we do want to see the 7 printed media get the same treatment as occurs with the visual and there does seem to be an agreement that we are in agreement with allowing the use of still photography from the press gallery. There is, at the present time, a little bit of difference of opinion between some member how much should be allowed. I would prefer personally to see that distinction being more or less on to what extent the use of a camera would distract from the activities of the Chamber.

Is there such a thing as providing a camera that when changing from one film to another does not make excessive noise and clicks and bangs as the ones that have been used so far? If it does become a distraction, at what point do you consider changing the permission that has been granted? I would like to hear some discussion in that respect. Has anyone anything to say on that matter? Hearing nothing then, it's agreed that we allow the printed media the right to take photographs from the press gallery on an experimental basis? Is that agreed? Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment.

I note from the news

article just late last week that the experiment in the House of Commons is to take place until the Easter recess in mid-April. lt may very well be that it's a fairly short experiment as a result of which may very well be some changes in those rules, and in the same way we might wish to make other changes in the rules within a fairly short period of time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there interest then in this committee watching fairly closely what transpires in the House of Commons, to gain some benefit from their experiment? Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that the House of Commons obviously put in the restrictions that they did for a purpose, I don't know. I've never discussed the matter with any members of the House of Commons or any staff members as to why they selected those restrictions but I would hope that they were done for a purpose and a reason and as Mr. Mercier said, their experiment is to carry on till the Easter break. I think that we should follow the same restrictions that they have and maybe review this matter after they have reviewed it after the Easter break. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, maybe we can add to the intelligence. There will be two experiments going on, one of head shoulders, one of unlimited pictures, and they, I'm certain, would want to see what we are doing to see what our experiment will show and therefore we will have two controlled groups and they will be able to compare and we will be adding to their intelligence, they will be adding to ours and in the meantime we can continue this. When you say till the Easter break, I would say at the sufferance of the members of the Legislature, which means that we could stop it at any time.

But the very same argument, I mean the reason that I suggest that it be unlimited in the gallery and only people in the gallery, and on this I disagree with

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 my friend, Mr. Walding, but that's really not an issue at the moment, the reason is that it just doesn't make sense, that the other camera can roam around anywhere and the newspapers, or the gallery, anybody else, might wish to have a picture of somebody who is not speaking, somebody who, if the issue was as it was several years ago that one fellow came in wearing a turtleneck and the story was that this man was disciplined by the Speaker, then it's the turtleneck that they want a picture of, not the speaking.

Or if he came in wearing sandals, which is what Pierre Trudeau did in the House of Commons, then it's the sandals that they want a picture of and that's below the waist. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't involved in the discussions with respect to televising the proceedings of the House. Can you advise me whether there are any restrictions on shots on television? MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe under the agreement, there was a tacit agreement that the camera would be focused on those people that were speaking.

That was one of the reasons why, while the original agreement allowed only the camera on the left hand side of the Speaker, we started an alternate process so they would get a better view of those that were standing up and speaking from both sides of the House. Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: Well, Mr. Chairman, possibly my memory is not like yours. I don't recall that we had any guidelines except that the media would be allowed. I believe it was at the media's discretion that they decided to do the question period only and I was not aware that it would have to be of the speakers.

I believe we left the discretion to them the same as they were doing their reporting, to report the proceedings of the Chamber. We laid no guidelines down in that regard and I do not believe, if memory serves me right, that we laid any guidelines down in respect to what the TV camera was to do either. So I believe if we go by that criterion that there are no guidelines as to what they take pictures of, then the the still photography should be within the same parameters. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there has to be some clarification.

Again, I refer to the House of Commons' so-called restrictions. The report indicates that the still photographs will be limited in the same way as the television cameras are limited in the House of Commons. My purpose in making my original suggestion was so that we get rid of the discrimination against the print media that there is now, in effect, as opposed to the television media. I think we have to perhaps determine whether there is in our House, that restriction on television cameras. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if that's the case then I agree entirely with Mr.

Mercier that the restriction 8 between the television and the still photograph be removed. I am satisfied contrary to, with respect, Mr. Chairman, your memory, that there was no restriction as to what the television camera could record. You will not find it in any agreement, and that's my memory, because what we said and it was a subject of considerable discussion at the time, was that the television would be able to do the same thing in pictures that the other reporters did in words and that was unrestricted to what they would report. Therefore, if Mr.

Mercier is saying that the still camera can now do the same except it will be a still photo rather than a television photo, then I'm entirely in agreement and in my view that would not restrict them to head and shoulders and people speaking, which would give us a different situation than the House of Commons but on an experimental basis, to see what happens. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you all agreed? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is the same as that of Mr.

Green, that I do not recall the committee putting any particular restrictions on television. lt so happens that whoever is speaking is usually on camera because that's where the action is, as they say. But in that case, I believe that we would want to be as internally consistent as the House of Commons is, that if they have restrictions on the TV coverage, they've got the same coverage on still pictures. Since we do not have those restrictions on TV we should have the same lack of restrictions on still film. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, are there some Minutes of a meeting that could be looked at? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there are transcripts. MR . MERCIER: I take it perhaps Mr. Reeves is going to search for those. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: There are not only Minutes, there are transcripts. MR . GREEN: That's right, because we did this after the transcribing of the minutes. But in any event I'm satisfied and the fact is that if the members find that there is a restriction, and Mr. Walding and I are wrong in our recollection, we'll have to deal with that question.

For the meantime we are saying, I gather all members are saying, that the still people will have the same privileges as the television people in terms of what they can do and if we later find that there is a restriction on the television people it will apply to the still ones. If there is no restriction on the television people there will be no restriction on the others. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have some indication from the committee? Are we going to put any restriction on the number of cameras that can be used or are we going to leave that wide open? MR. BLAKE: I'd leave it open.

I think at the discretion of the press gallery, ... a hundred there, for example, but I'm sure that they will use their common sense.

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether there's a consensus in the committee or whether they only wish to give an opinion on the use of the public galleries for taking pictures. MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that at the present time our rules have stated that no pictures be taken from the public gallery. I don't think our rules have even been specific in that respect. lt said there shall be no pictures taken from the galleries, I believe, that doesn't even differentiate between press and public. We are now attempting to make that distinction. Mr. Green.

MR. GREEN: I believe,t to deal with Mr. Walding's question. We are presently removing the restriction on the press gallery, period. And I think that if the other is to be raised it has to be raised as a separate issue. I believe that's what should happen. MR.

WALDING: The reason I raised it is the situation could occur that a photographer wishing to take pictures of the Legislature in session could not gain access to the press gallery, for whatever reason, matter of space, doesn't have accreditation or whatever the reason is and would then like to go into the public gallery and take pictures from there, to be on a similar sort of basis to those who do have press gallery privileges.

In that case, are we then ·to say certain photographers may go into the public galleries to take pictures, or no one should take pictures from the public gallery, in which case you might have some discrimination against members of the press wishing to take pictures. That's my concern. MR . CHAIRMAN: At the present time the rule is that no one is allowed to take pictures from the galleries. If you want to make a motion to change that .. . MR . WALDING: I'm questioning the consistency of what we're doing now. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Slake. MR .

BLAKE: Well, I couldn't support picture taking from any position in that gallery, Mr. Chairman. I realize what Mr. Walding is saying that somebody may not be able to obtain a picture of the House in session but I'm sure that if that person is connected with a newspaper or media of some type that he could arrange that with the press gallery to get in there for a limited amount of time to get whatever pictures he might require.

Because if you start having cameras pop up all over that place it just takes one incident to bring back the rule that we've always had that there'll be no cameras anywhere and that would take you right back to where we've been for the last umpteen years. So I think that we've removed the restriction there and I think anyone would be able to get access to the press gallery to have a picture taken if they went through the proper channels. MR. CHAIRMAN: . Well gentlemen we have had a pretty thorough airing of this subject at this time, time is moving on.

Is there any further discussion? 9 Am I correct in assuming that we are giving permission for the taking of still photographs from the press gallery; that we are not putting any limit on the number of cameras that are going to be allowed in there, nor are we insisting on any sharing of the product? Is that a correct assumption? That is a departure then from what we are using with respect to the visual media where we do insist on a sharing agreement. I point that out to you. Mr. McGregor. MR.

MORRIS McGREGOR (Virden): Well I kind of like that arrangement that there is a sharing with those photographers rather than have the isolated. Because again the rural guy isn't going to share it unless - and I don't know my weeklies - how many of them are associated with Canadian Press, and if they're not how do they ever get a picture if there's no sharing. If the sharing has worked reasonably well with TV cameras why not have the same wording. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR . GREEN: Yes. The sharing with the television cameras came about as a practical necessity.

First of all, we had to station the person outside the gallery; we could not imagine stationing several cameras there for sheer space problems. With regard to the other media, we can't insist that the Free Press share its stories with the rural papers or that we have the reporters transmit to others, and with the still cameras there isn't the same practical problem that we were forced into with the television cameras and therefore I don't think we can impose anything upon the journalists other than what we had to impose by virtue of the television.

As far as the papers that don't happen to have a person there, they're in the same position as they are with regard to any other news, they have to scramble, they have to try to make arrangements, they have to try to get there and they have managed to do that and I'm sure that they will make arrangements with the journalists to see to it that they get what they want. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, I take it it's understood that distracting photographs, flash photos, noisy cameras, something that creates a lot of noise and members object to will be not used and MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well, how is that going to be communicated to the media? Do you want that to be done through the Chair? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Chair do that but I think that the Chair at all times has the discretion of telling a member he is not behaving in accordance with decorum, and if anything disturbs decorum I would say that the Speaker should be able to deal with it immediately, then he may refer what he has done to the Rules Committee.

But I would trust certainly the Speaker to deal with the matter of decorum and tell somebody that their particular activities are creating a problem for decorum and that would take care of a noisy camera.

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? I think we have spent quite a bit of time . . . MR. GREEN: lt never takes care of a noisy member. MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the failing of the Speaker, Mr. Green. If we can I would like to proceed with a matter that was raised by the Clerk here, a change in Rule 33, respecting a 40-minute time limit. Mr. Reeves, can you explain to the committee the concern that you have had on this particular problem? Is this the one where it's the matter of whether there is more than one? There are two problems here, one is what constitutes a debate?

Say the Throne Speech Debate is one debate but there are two or three amendments. Is the Leader of a recognized political party allowed one 40-minute time, our unlimited time, or does he have unlimited time on every amendment? Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that this has been a suggestion as to whether . . . it was raised by the Clerk. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it was myself I believe. MR.

GREEN: No, even you I won't blame. lt was raised by the members of the government benches and it was raised this year because a speaker intended to speak on an amendment and he was a New Democrat and he indicated that he was designated to make the leader speech on that motion. That is something that's been done for 10 years. I have done it myself on at least four or five occasions. lt's been raised and then permitted and was done by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. Now, I don't see why we are wasting our time over this.

Any amendment is a substantive motion and every member of the House is entitled to speak on that motion, therefore you have a second speech. If you have a second speech, the Leader of a party is entitled to unlimited time. If the Leader of a party is on unlimited time, he is entitled to designate it. Why are we troubling ourselves with it? The fact is that it applies to all members of the House; it applies to the government as well as to the opposition.

If there is an amendment and the Leader intend s that either he speak or desig nates somebody, if he feels it's of that importance, then he will be able to speak more than 40 minutes. We've never had a problem with this. lt's been done on numerous occasions.

The one area where I think that it could be perhaps more cle ar so that we can avoid misunderst anding is that the Leader should designate to the Speaker in advance that he intends to do this and intends to name the member so it can't be done as sort of a chance or that some member has spoken for 40 minutes and then wants to continue and uses the rule by saying, well, my Leader has designated me. As long as the Leader of the party designates, the Leader of a recognized may designate by notice to the Speaker prior to the commencement of the sitting.

In other words, as long as he tells you before the sitting starts, which is before 2:30, that he is going to designate somebody to speak in his place on a particular motion, and every sub-amendment is a motion, that then you know that man is entitled to speak for over 40 minutes. That could at least remove some misunderstanding. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would concur that the only problem that may arise if someone doesn't give notice in advance. I'm not inclined to agree to 24 hours' prior notice but I do think ... MR. GREEN: No, no, just before the sitting. MR.

FOX: But I'm looking at what was before us, and there it says 24 hours. MR. CHAIRMAN: That was just a suggestion of mine. MR. FOX: Okay, I'm in concurrence that there should be notice prior to the speech. MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to Orders of the Day? MR. FOX: Prior to Orders of the Day, that's right or the sitting. I mean to be prepared to go for the sitting of the day. But I do not think that we should have any other problem with that.

If an amendment has been made and we're discussing I think in this instance a particular speech like the Throne Speech, then the Leader couldn't designate his time for the amendment anyway, only on the sub-ame ndment if there is one, because he has already spoken on the motion and made the amendment himself. Generally that's what occurs.

In other areas where you are discussing a bill or something of that nature, I see no reason why there should not be the opportunity to designate someone else to take the Leader's time because as you all know this is teamwork and even though the Leader is cognizant of all areas there sometimes are some very technical areas where we may want to designate someone else as a main speaker on a particular issue. I'm in concurrence with the notice being given prior to the speech being made. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed then? Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that type of amendment would be agreeable. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I raise just one poi nt, perhaps directed to the Attorney-General because it might well affect the government side more than the opposition and that is, if notice has to be given in advance, it may well be that the Leader of that political party is out of the province for some particular conference and has been away for several days before or may not be able to anticipate what would happen. Would it be sufficient perhaps for that person who is designated to say at the beginning of his speech that he is the designated? MR. CHAIRMAN: House Leader. MR.

WALDING: Or the House Leader. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? 10

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. MERCIER: Did Mr. Green indicate that the notice should be in writing? MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Speaker prior to the session. MR. GREEN: Excuse me, I would suggest to the person who do it, that he do it that way because that's not a problem. You know, we do it with the emergency urgency debates so that there is no argument about it. But I think that it can stay this way that he give notice, but I would say that if I was the one who was giving it I would give it to him in writing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't advocate the use of the words "in writing". MR.

GREEN: That's right. MR. ME RCIE R: You know, a Leader of the Opposition or the government could be in Swan River and be snowed in at the final minute or something is wrong with the plane, and it would be impossible. MR. GREEN: I agree. MR. MERCIER: A phone call can be made very quickly but . . . MR. GREEN: agree with what Mr. Mercier is saying. I'm saying leave it the way it is. If I was to do it, I would do it right. MR. MERCIER: That's right. MR.

CLERK: Why not use the wording that you have in the matters of urgent public importance when we simply say, "of which he has given prior notice". lt doesn't say by "in writing" or anything else. So it leaves a particular . . . MR. MERCIER: That wouldn't be prior to the commencement of the sitting either. If he was to speak in the evening that could be 7 o'clock. That latter wording seems more appropriate, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? The next item that we have marked down is one that the Premier raised about the publication on the Orders of the Day of private members' business. Mr. Fox. MR.

FOX: Mr. Chairman, I do not see any real particular problem about that. I believe that when we are into Speed-up the orders are just amended from the morning orders and so, therefore, there is no point in eliminating something.

The reason I would not like to see it eliminated is because we do not know when the House will adjourn and consequently if you were only to have it on particular days, once a week, you may find yourself that it's not on the Order Paper when you have reached that order of business where the private member's item is taken up just before you adjourned the House and it would create an administrative problem. I don't know if it's an administrative problem now to include it every day and, if it isn't, I don't see why we should worry about it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I can inform the House that at the present time with the changed format we do have the ability here to print in-House without going outside this building, a quick Order Paper but there are certain reservations about it and if the length of the Order Paper is much greater it may cause some problems, but that's a very minor consideration. Shall we just pass on this item? The next thing that we have marked, sub­ amendments to amendments be permitted at the report stage. Mr. Reeves, I think you have some ... MR.

CLERK: Well I think it is pretty well laid out in the background papers which I prepared for you gentlemen, and the problem seemed to be, if I remember correctly, a Member of the Opposition proposed a sub-amendment of which no notice was given and yet our rules require the giving of notice on an occasion of an amendment and I think it puts you in an awkward position, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you would rule the sub-amendment in order or otherwise. And for that reason it's been brought up for discussion at the committee meeting as to whether we allow them or whether we don't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. 11 MR.

FOX: Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem that arises is that one cannot contemplate what an amendment will be in advance and if the amendment doesn't meet with totality of what one wants to do a sub-amendment is necessary. Now, unless we write in that the sub-amendment has to be given notice of after the amendment is made, which will delay it for another 24 hours, I can't see the reason why we shouldn't be able to proceed on a sub-amendment. But I do think that it should be recognized that if someone is making a sub-amendment they should be given time in order to inform the members of what their sub-amendment is.

You just can't anticipate every amendment that's going to come along and whether it's going to totally cover the situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Slake. MR. BLAKE: I think that's the reason for the notice in the first instance, Mr. Chairman, to give the members some indication of what will be in the amendment so it only follows that there should be notice on the sub-amendment if one is proposed. Why should you have to consider one and not the other unless you're not going to allow a sub­ amendment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, supposing the sub­ amendment is defeated in the House and the other members wish to propose a different sub­ amendment, are you then going to say, well we'll stop everything for 24 hours and do that? This frequently comes in at Speed-up and I can see a great deal of time being wasted, perhaps as a manoeuvre to waste a great deal of time.

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. BLAKE: Well, I think this is an isolated incident because we're all aware of what happened in this particular case. it may never happen again but if it does, of course, you want to have something in your rules to cover it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if members felt that a sub-amendment wouldn't have to have notice given then there's really no point having notice for the original amendment. I mean, we've got to be consistent shouldn't we?

You might as well scrap having notice on the original amendment and we'll turn the Legislature into a bear pit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: think that this sub-amendment business is a problem, Mr. Chairman. We are amending legislation, it's never done on the floor of the House. Let us think about it. You cannot amend legislation on the floor of the House. The only amendments that are permitted on the floor of the House are to six months hoist, a reasoned amendment, but you cannot amend the bill. Now we made this report stage in order to elimi nate Committee of the Whole House.

We don't have Committee of the Whole House on bills and at Committee of the Whole House you could move an amendment. We said, we go through the entire committee and then you go back to Committee of the Whole and you go through it clause by clause again. The clauses that are not accepted at committee, that the opposition or the government feels strong about, introduce into the Whole House so that they can be voted on by members of the Whole House as clauses.

But once you permit a sub­ amendment in there you can have it range completely away from what was discussed and there is no notice given; it doesn't come as a matter which is definitively to be dealt with and which sometimes requires explanation. And a sub-amendment dealt with at the report stage means that that particular thing, coming in without prior discussion, without going to committee, can be passed and change legislation and I think that that's very unusual.

I stand to be corrected by any of the honourable members as to where you can change legislation in the House without it ever getting to committee and without notice, without a motion. I stand to be corrected but I can't think of it at the moment. And therefore, I think that the only thing that can be voted on is what has come as a specific amendment at the report stage, unless there is unanimous consent. And of course by unanimous consent you can pass three readings without going to committee in 20 minutes and that has been done too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reeves. MR.

CLERK: The only thing that I wonder about is Rule 88(6) where we're talking about the expiration of 24 hours. If we are in Speed-up 24 hours is between the morning and the afternoon, the normal routine of things. So, we're talking about holding things up for 24 hours in the usual accepted sense MR. GREEN: But, Mr. Chairman, we have had that rule five years. We have had that rule for something like five years, and when this came up they said, somebody could make us sit here for an entire weekend because he won't give unanimous consent on the report stage. it's true, it could happen.

He could also be tarred and feathered. The fact is, we have never had that problem when we come into Speed-up, but if somebody wants to say that I want 24 hours they can say it and we'll have to stay here 24 hours, but we've never had that problem. it's always been accepted that we will take it to the next session. it's never been complained about. I would leave it in case some day, or even if we're a party or the opposition wants to say that this is so important that we want 24 hours notice, so we sit another 24 hours. MR. CLERK: 24 hours by the clock, Mr. Green or 24 hours by the . . . MR.

GREEN: The clock says 24 hours. A MEMBER: Do you mean the rules says 24 hours? MR. GREEN: Yes, it says 24 hours. MR. CLERK: Yes. A MEMBER: But you're saying in Speed-up a 24 hour span means from morning to afternoon. MR. GREEN: Where does it say that? A MEMBER: it's been ... MR. GREEN: I am suggesting to you that we have accepted that, that if somebody demands 24 hours he can have 24 hours. MR. CLERK: Well, we say, for example, that each sitting is a separate sitting. MR. GREEN: That's right. A MEMBER: Yes, but we do not say 24 hours are not 24 hours. MR. GREEN: We do, but then we do have a separate sitting.

We call the Speaker in and we do have a separate sitting. MR. CLERK: Yes. MR. FOX: 24 hours is still 24 hours. MR. GREEN: If you want to change this rule, Mr. Chairman, that notice of one sitting shall be given, I would have no objection, although I'm not sure I would like it because we have been able to do it the way it is, but if you want to change it so that there be notice which is to the extent of one full sitting, I would have no objection because that's what we've been doing. Would that solve the problem, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what the Clerk is worried about? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I personally don't see whether you change it to one sitting or 24 hours, to me that is more or less an academic argument. 12

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 MR. GREEN: Well but, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that nobody has yet said, which is what the Clerk is saying, that 24 hours means one sitting or it means the next sitting. We've done that by practice, but nobody has insisted that 24 hours means 24 hours, and I happen to believe that 24 hours means 24 hours and that anybody has been free to raise that if they wanted to, but they've never raised it.

If the Clerk or the members of this committee feel that they want to avoid somebody raising that, and they want to change this rule to read one sitting, I won't be greatly disturbed; I don't think it's necessary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steen. MR. STEEN: Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing really two subjects here: Whether notice on a sub-amendment must be given is question one; and question two is what is considered sufficient notice, and we're trying to define 24 hours or another sitting of the House? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I believe the honourable member is quite correct in that we have these two items before us. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, I think that if a person moves an amendment and has to give notice, then if a person wishes to amend that amendment through a sub-amendment that, in fairness to all members of the House, that notice again should be given. That's question one.

Now on the time period, if we've been working well for five years that 24 hours really isn't 24 hours, that it's a change from Session A to Session 8 in the same given day and, if it works, that's fine with me but if sufficient members want it to be 24 official hours, I don't care. I'm hung up on the fact that the sub-amendment should carry notice as well as the amendment. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a different problem than Mr. Steen. I don't believe that you should have a sub-amendment.

I believe that the fellow who wants to introduce a sub-amendment should introduce an amendment and then there will be two amendments before the House at the report stage. And if the House adopts one of them, if they are contradictory they cannot adopt them both. MR. STEEN: Who rules which one comes first? MR. GREEN: Well, the one of which notice was given. What difference does it make, if the people want the second one then they'll vote against the first and then the second one will be brought forward.

We've had that, we have had that on numerous occasions where there have been more than one amendment brought in on the same area and we've voted on them seriatim. MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a problem though, and again, maybe I just want to create debate.

When you look at Sub. 10, if there are several amendments the Speaker may select or combine amendments to be proposed at the report stage, and if a person has every intention of putting an amendment in and finds that the Speaker has arbitrarily cut him out by combining his amendment with somebody else's and he isn't in agreement with that what is his recourse at that point in time? MR. GREEN: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that he could ask that the Speaker's Ruling on the combination be overruled. We haven't had that problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: I just raise it as . . . MR. GREEN: I know what I would do.

I would say that the Speaker has combined it, his ruling on the combination I respectfully suggest is wrong and I would ask that it be overruled. If it's not overruled then I've got a vote on the amendment that's there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think to resolve the matter that's before the committee, the consensus is that Subsection 5 should be left as it is and notice should be required and that I think there's a general consensus in

Section 6, 24 hours be changed to one sitting just to clarify what is in fact the understanding of everyone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, just speaking to the matter of the 24-hour phrase. I seem to recall some arguments in the House back a few years when the expression of one day was used and it was argued there that one day did not mean 24 hours, it could apply to one sitting day and I believe that's how it came about that the phrase 24 hours was introduced to make it clear that 24 hours meant 24 hours and not one sitting day. I believe that was the intent of it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I seem to get two differing viewpoints here in this committee on the 24-hour issue. I think there are some that would like to leave it at 24 hours and there are some that may be quite willing to accept one sitting instead. Can I get further elaboration on that? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, for clarification I was not arguing one way or another. I was only offering an explanation of how the words 24 hours came to be in our book. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Well I respect what Mr.

Walding has said and if that's the way we came to it maybe this is still an improvement because 24 hours doesn't include a Sunday, etc. One sitting is perfectly clear. lt could be a morning, an afternoon, an evening or a full day. In other words, we have no problem with one sitting

whereas we used to have a problem with a day or 24 hours so it seems to me one sitting would be the better of the situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is everyone in agreement with that then, that we change it to one sitting instead of 24 hours? The word in Subsection 6 where it refers to "24 hours", we change that to "one sitting". MR. CLERK: That applies to a sub-amendment as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not to a sub-amendment. We are at the present time unless I get some other direction, we are not considering a sub-amendment. MR. GREEN: Maybe we'd better put that in and I'll tell you why, because we have a Speaker's ruling 13

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 that he will accept a sub-amendment. So maybe it had better be stated in the rules that no amendment that reports say is subject to amendment. No amendment that reports say, is not subject to be amended in the Legislature because otherwise we have a precedent which says it can be amended. - (Interjection)- We can always change that. MR. CHAIRMAN: No amendment without referral back to committee. MR. GREEN: Well that it can't be re-amended in the House.

I just think it can be amended because anybody else who wants to introduce his view can put in an amendment with a different meaning at the report stage. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's agreement on that then. Can we then move on to the next item dealing with Rule 93. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, looking at the rules, that I guess has crept in and it's just been left because

Section 71 defines the Committee on Private Bills as a Standing Committee of the House. I would think if we just deleted Subsection (e), that solves the problem. MR. FOX:

Section (

e) has indicated that the Clerk be assigned to Standing and Special Committess so therefore (

e) is really superfluous and it shouldn't be in there. MR. CH AIRMAN: Is there agreement then to delete? Then we'll move on to Recommendation No. 18 of 1971. With respect to a transcript and it's just a . . . I think we are now at the stage where transcripts are almost automatic. MR. FOX: At one time it was at the discretion of the committee and I think now it should be at the discretion of the committee whether they do not want transcripts. Just reverse it so that they can once in a while deal with things not on record. MR.

CLERK: In other words, gentlemen, we did not pass a motion at this committee meeting for a transcript. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's agreement on that. Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: An additional item I would like to raise, Mr.Chairman, and I appreciate it if Mr. Fox is not yet ready to respond but if he was we could deal with it. Rule 65(5) authorizes Committee of Supply to sit in two separate sections, one in the Chamber and outside the Chamber. I have proposed to Mr. Fox that particularly inasmuch as we are sitting in the second committee room that we -( Interjection)- no it wasn't. I walked down to the other room.

That we consider amending that rule to allow the Committee of Supply to sit in two committees. If he hasn't reviewed that matter with his caucus then he can consider this later. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox first. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Attorney-General, I have not had a chance to discuss this and get a consensus but I am prepared to do it and we shall look at it. The only question I have is on your memo in respect to this item.

You indicated that you had attached a list and whether that was going to be the order or was it still at the preference of the government and the opposition and which room were you going to designate, which one was to be which? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fox for raising that. What I would propose is that the government would choose the order in one committee room and the opposition would choose the order in the other committee room. MR. FOX: So therefore this list doesn't really . . . MR. MERCIER: I'm prepared to indicate to you which would be our list if you show it to me.

The top one would be our list. MR. FOX: Okay. But not necessarily in that order. MR. MERCIER: In that order. MR. fOX: In that order. Fine. This one here we'll change to our taste. Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I believe Mr. Green would like to be heard. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have had an opportunity of reviewing this with my caucus and therefore I'm goin g to be able to speak to it immediately, and to have reached a consensus, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I want to speak now because I want to appeal to the members of the government and to at least make known to the members of the official opposition one opinion which they could consider within their caucus. When the rule permitting an Estimates Committee to go out of the House was formulated it was strongly resisted by the opposition, the then opposition, the Conservative Party, for good reason.

By the way I don't in any way detract from what was said and I had the same concern myself that it would tend to remove the impact of political positions in the Estimates debate and tend to make the Estimates debate a replica of what it is in Ottawa where the Liberals have succeeded in killing the debate on the Estimates by changing the format.

At the same time it was impressed upon them that there are certain areas of government expenditures which are much more detailed, where staff is much more needed, where the informality of tables are far more important in examining the expenditures, and that if we could convince the opposition that certain of the Estimates debates and without infringing on the rules, could be more adequately dealt with in a committee outside of the House that that be done, but that the formal debate on the Estimates would not be lost, the format of the House, the standing for the making of the speech has much more impact in terms of where the Estimate debate involves a question of political philosophy and political impact.

For that reason, it was insisted that we stay in the House and go to committee on an experimental basis with regard to other estimates. That was done and the then opposition became satisfied that this 14

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 process was not being used as a tool to stifle or reduce the impact of political positions that were being by the government or by the opposition and that was best accomplished in the debating format of the House rather than the discussing format of an Estimates Committee. Mr. Chairman, that concerns me at the same time and I want to try to remind the members of the opposition that when Mr. Jorgenson and I were the respective House leaders, I always tried to assess the position of the rules as if I were in the opposition because I knew that some day I would get there and I was right. Mr.

Jorgenson always tried to think as if he was in government because he thought some day he would get there and he was right, and as a result of that we came to much better agreement as to rules. I say the same thing now. The Attorney-General should try to assess his position as if he was in opposition which he will surely be and I think sooner than he thinks. The members of the opposition should try to assess their position as if they might some day be in government which I believe they will surely be.

If that was done then I don't think that there would be this vehicle for what I consider to be a less satisfactory forum for the conduct of debate. Some of the estimates, indeed a major part of them in terms of expenditures, are the subject of debate which is far more for which the House forum is much more satisfactory than the committee forum, and I would therefore not be inclined and I would ask opposition members to check with people who were on the former committee to see what I am now saying and said during the last five minutes is not correct. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr.

Green's comments and a number of members have similar concerns. One solution to his concerns, and I would ask him if he would be prepared to comment, might be for the procedure to be that wherever the Estimates to be considered in two committee rooms, but wherever there is to be a debate on the Minister's Salary that that take place in the House. I think that is where the real philosophical, political debate takes place. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is certainly accommodating thinking. I am worried now that all the Ministers' Salaries would be debated in the House.

In other words everything would go into committee except the Ministers' Salaries which would be debated in the House. I am just a little worried as to whether or not you're going to have nothing happening in the committees and everything going into the House. 11 sounds good, you know, we used to say that we'll debate all of the lines until we come to the Minister's Salary and I said, look, the guy who's got the point to make and wants to get it made first and with the greatest impact will find a way to debate that up the ladder and he did. Now you reserve the Ministers' Salaries to the House.

I am worried as to whether you're going to find that everything else that takes place is a facade and go into the House and everything is debated. So it's all very well to put it down as a rule as to how it will subsequently work out - I'm not certain - I'd be willing to sort of try that with three departments or two departments this year to see what happened, to see whether what you're suggesting will work, but to take the Estimates out of the House is to do what they have done in the House of Commons.

You will find that this guy Trudeau who said that 50 yards from Parliament Hill you're a bunch of nobodys, he really believes that and he has tried to make that effective with the Estimates and has done so. Now he wants to make it effective by saying that when I leave parliament, because I don't trust you people who are a bunch of nobodys, you're not going to be able to change what I did while I was there and that stems from an elitist, contemptuous view of parliame nt. The entire federal constitutional process is part of Mr. Trudeau's contempt for parliament and I don't want Manitoba to follow that lead. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: I can concur with some of the sentiments expressed by Mr. Green and also by the accommodation that the Attorney-General suggested. I have found that the debate can be far­ ranging in one area and in the committee room as compared to the atmosphere in the House, it is a different atmosphere. There are problems involved in both areas and I think what we're trying to do is to see how we can best adjust our rules to meet the needs of what we want to accomplish, we want to accomplish doing the business of Manitoba.

I have that fear that there will be less exposure at the committee level in the committee rooms but I also find that there are disadvantages in the Chamber. We have come a long way because prior to this change we also used to have concurrences which gave us another form and another area of debate where the principles and policies could be thrashed out in open debate. We have done away with that.

Now, before we make a firm decision in regard to this and, as I indicated earlier I haven't had a chance to discuss this fully in caucus, we should maybe consider whether the kind of thing that the Attorney­ General suggested would be of value or whether we should go back to concurrences which would then give us an opportunity to tackle each department in another kind of a debate; that we do our nuts and bolts work at one level and do our philosophical debate at another.

These are just thoughts off the top of my head, just as the other members have expressed, but I would concur that just doing it in committee will not necessarily give us the best and the most efficient way of dealing with the Estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed the remarks the Honourable Member for lnkster made with respect to the present Prime Minister of Canada. I happen to concur in his view, however, I do want to point out to Mr. Green that the Estimates MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please.

There are some disadvantages about having meetings in committee and I think that 's one of the disadvantages that has just been displayed. I would hope that there would be one member at a time speaking and the courtesy extended to that one member. 15

Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: I do want to point out to Mr. Green that the Estimates disappeared from the House of Commons long before Mr. Trudeau appeared on the scene. The question that we have here is one of trying to accommodate members of the Assembly. I have heard many members expressing their concern that how can they express their views in this committee when there is another committee sitting in the House and they have the problem and we get into duplication. A member will run from one committee to the other and ask that they go back to the previous item which had been passed because he wasn't there to take

part in the debate. This causes a great deal of problem. Now, if we can find some way to eliminate a lot of that duplication and to accommodate members. I think Mr. Mercier had a very good suggestion here that the Minister's Salary be debated in the House. We do the Estimates in the two committees and debate the Minister's Salary in the House. We do run into the danger that that debate can go on for days and we cannot discuss another department while we're dealing with the Minister's Salary, but maybe that isn't the intention, I don't know.

I just wanted to raise some problems, concerns that have been brought to me by individual members. The purpose of this whole system is to allow a member the opportunity to express himself and to express his concerns and to assist in providing good government for this province of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. GRAHAM: I wasn't finished, but go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. MR. GRAHAM: No, I think I've said . MR. CHAIRMAN: When you stopped for a breath, Mr. Graham, I thought you were finished. You still have the floor. MR. GRAHAM: No, go ahead. Go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I hope you move the Estimates along like that this year. Let me assure Mr. Green and all members of the committee that we don't want to do anything that is going to downgrade the Legislature in the same manner as the federal government has done wlth the House of Commons. With respect to Mr. Green's comment about perhaps stacking up Estimates. Let's take as an example, you have two sets of Estimates going on in two committee rooms, they both finish at about the same time. There is going to be a debate on both Ministers' Salary; one starts in the House.

I don't think that necessarily means that you have to have committee rooms doing nothing. I think another set could start and when one debate on the Minister's Salary was ended then the other one would carry on. MR. GREEN: That's not my problem. My problem was whether there was just going to be nothing happening in committee and everybody waiting until they get to the Minister's Salary in the House, that's what I was worried about. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I'm sorry.

What I'm telling the Attorney-General is that his thinking on that issue certainly indicates that he is not trying to downplay it. lt may come to the reverse of what he's saying, that you will find that the committee rooms become very mundane places and that people wait for their points to deal with the Minister's Salary or that the Minister's Salary is the important item, I don't know. People generally don't wait for a ministerial salary to get a point through if they feel it's an important point.

So my fears may be unfounded and it may be that the suggestion that the committee sits outside, provided that the Minister's Salary is done inside, is a way of overcoming my problems. I'll think about that. What I do know is that I don't think that all of the Estimates should be out of the House. I think it's good thinking. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Can I ask the Attorney-General why this suggestion comes to the committee at this time? MR. MERCIER: Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, partly out of a concern for what should take place in the House.

At the present time we have a set of Estimates going on in the House. To a visitor in the gallery, he sees a limited number of people in the House and detailed questions being asked and I don't think it's the type of business that probably should be going on in the House.

I think the Estimates procedure could be improved dramatically if the review of the Estimates, mainly on the item-by­ item basis, frankly, we're done more for informational purposes and I think it would be helpful and what we've been trying to do is get the Ministers to provide as much information at the beginning of the Estimates as possible and avoid a lot of standard questions that I heard in the first few years; how many staff man years in this department; is there an increase or a decrease; is there an office in such and such a place?

I think a lot of that detailed information could be provided and the real debate on philosophy and principles take place under Minister's Salary and I think it's most appropriate that kind of debate do take place in the House rather than in a committee room. MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Harry Graham: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: When we moved the first committee out of the House we changed the order of discussion and said the Minister's Salary will come last. The theory behind it being that members of the opposition could get all of their facts and then use the last item for debate in principle.

That seems to have swung around, particularly in the past couple of years, that members are starting to go back to the original idea of making their arguments under the first item. I know that this concerned the Government House Leader. There have been suggestions that the chief opposition critic reply for 30 minutes or whatever it is and then they move on. I'm wondering if what he's now suggesting to us is that you are going to have two debates on the Minister's Salary; one under the first item and then you go down to the line by line and then you go 16

I Tuesday, 27 January, 1981 back into the House and have the same debate all over again or a similar one. Does he see that as expediting the work of the House and you're not just making yourself more work? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. FOX: I again say that I'm encouraged by the view of the Attorney-General that the debate on principle and policy and so on should be under the Minister's Salary and a separate debate in the House. Does he not also, if what he said subsequent to that, that the committee could still carry on even if there were two Ministers' debates pending?

One would take place and the other one would follow, that all of a sudden we'll find ourselves dealing in three arenas because you've got two committee rooms, two Estimates that can be taken care of and then the Minister's Salary pending for the House. We'd have to start giving priority as to which debates will take place because you won't be able to spread the people around in three areas. That's what may take place. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. ME RCIER: That could take place, Mr. Chairman. I think the practical matter is that there haven't been that many debates on the Minister's Salary.

Usually I don't think there is a debate on every Minister's Salary. To Mr. Walding, what he says is true. We have had now I think almost two debates. There is a debate at the beginning and, if the opposition wants, there is a debate at the end. So it is in fact taking place now. One way of avoiding that would be to debate the Minister's Salary first which has been a suggestion in the past. But, again, whether that would improve the situation, I don't know, because it would still allow for further debate on the detail. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, since we're exploring this, Mr.

Fox's fears would be solved if we would say that when the Minister's Salary is being debated everybody will be in the House. In other words, you would finish a debate on a department, you come to the Minister's Salary, you move into Supply and say that the purpose of the Committee of Supply in the House is to debate the Minister's Salary. You debate the Minister's Salary, when that's finished you break off with your committees. So the Minister's Salary is always debated before all of the members, which is a big advantage. MR. MERCIER: I think the practical problem I would have on that, Mr.

Chairman, is we've seen the increasing number of hours spent on Estimates over the last three years and we're I think now up almost 100 hours over what we were a few years ago. That would only contribute to a longer time, in total, spent on Estimates. MR.

GREEN: I am quite certain if you're thinking of time, that if you're going to debate the Estimates outside and the Minister's Salary in the House, then you have a chance of increasing that time substantially because when you get into the House and start debating the Minister's Salary, it may take much longer to do it in the House than it was being done in committee. Anyway, I think that the Minister has, and we have explored this somehow, and it's given us all something to think about. What I think I can immediately express opposition to is doing all of the Estimates out of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steen. MR.

STEEN: Mr. Chairman, you will perhaps recall, along with Mr. Green and others, that in 1976, when we tried for the first time that experiment of doing some Estimates out of the House that only a limited number of departments were done that year, too, the Clerk has indicated to me. My suggestion would be to Mr. Fox that perhaps he could take under advisement and give some thought along with his colleagues that for this year we try doing two sets of Estimates out of the House for two departments and then go back to the House and the Committee for the remainder of the session.

But we, somewhere along, whether it be the first four departments, two in this committee room, two in the other one, and then we carry on in one of the two committee rooms and then back into the House for the remainder of the session and experiment. I would suggest that even Mr. Fox, as House Leader of the Opposition, choose the department that would be outside the House, whether they be small departments or whatever he wishes. Mr.

Green has expressed a fear that major departments that have major expenditures and also carry a great deal of political thought and philosophy might lose some of their importance if they were not dealt with in the House and perhaps he's got a good point there. So perhaps my suggestion might be taken by Mr. Fox and maybe his group would give some thought to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I think everyone here has the genuine concern of making the most effective use of our time and making sure that debate is not stifled.

Is there any inclination to make some definite decision at this time, or can that be made at a later date? MR. WALDING: Our group has a meeting later this week, Mr. Chairman, at which time we will discuss this. In the meantime can the Attorney-General give us an indication of which department he will call first for Estimates so we can advise our people? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further items for discussion at this time? If not, I'll entertain the customary motion from someone. lt's been moved Committee rise. Is that agreed? (Agreed) 17

Third T roisiilme class classe 8260