TIME – 6 p.m.
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Hon. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden)
ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Mrs. Driedger, Hon. Messrs. Gerrard, Goertzen, Wharton
Ms. Fontaine, Messrs. Helwer, Johnston, Marcelino, Micklefield, Piwniuk, Swan
APPEARING:
Hon. Steven Fletcher, MLA for Assiniboia
Ms. Patricia Chaychuk, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
Mr. Rick Yarish, Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Proposed Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Rules of the House please come to order.
This meeting has been called to consider proposed amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
You will find before you copies of a document entitled Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals, October 2018, which we will be considering today. The French text of the proposed rules is also provided for you.
Does the committee agree to consider the amendments in numerical order with the understanding that we can stop at any time if members have any questions or comments? [Agreed]
So noted. Does the committee wish the Clerk or Deputy Clerk to provide an explanation for each amendment?
An Honourable Member: Sure.
Madam Chairperson: So noted.
Does the Government House Leader have any opening comments?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I will be brief, Madam Speaker.
I want to thank members of this committee on both sides of this House for the fact that we have this committee. I've been involved in rule changes, along with the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), prior to the last election, and one of the things we committed to was regular meetings of the standing committee on the rules just to see, you know, if the things are functioning the way we hoped to.
And I always look at this as a very non-partisan exercise where we all have a stake in ensuring that the Legislature works well. Of course, we all have–we can have differences and exercise those differences, but generally we all have a stake in ensuring that the rules work for everyone in a way that provides for both democratic debate, but also allows things to happen.
So I appreciate the process we've gone through up until this point, and I'm sure we'll have future committees of the rules with that kind of a non-partisan lens. And then I appreciate the discourse we've had with all members of the House leading up into this day.
Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister.
Does the Official Opposition House Leader have any opening comments?
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): So I guess in the same spirit, I just want to say miigwech to everybody that's participated in the several meetings that we've had. And I think that the discussions have been very positive, they've been very respectful and it's allowed us to be here today, which I think is good.
But, more importantly, I really do what to take the moment–a moment to just say miigwech and thank you so much for the expertise of Rick and Patricia and for all of the work that, Rick, you have done to get us to this point just on 13 changes. We know that there are many, many other changes that we should be looking at eventually.
But I just want to say for the record how much I just honour and respect the enormous expertise that all of you have in the Clerk's office. And I just say miigwech for getting us here tonight.
Madam Chairperson: We thank the member.
Does the House leader of the second opposition party have any opening statement?
The honourable official–the honourable leader–no, the honourable House leader of the second opposition party.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Second Opposition House Leader): Just–I'd like to echo the thanks to Rick and to Patricia for all the effort that went into this. I know we've got lots more to come and hope that this is the first of some more regular meetings of the rules committee. And I'd like to thank all those who participated. I think we had some good, cordial and constructive discussions, and we've got the first series of amendments, I think, since–significant amendments, anyway, since the last election, so it's good. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: We thank the member.
We will now begin consideration of the document. For your reference, I will be referring to the item numbers listed in the left side of each page.
Item No. 1: Definition of Leader of the Official Opposition.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): This is a very simple change that is changing something that has been overlooked in our rules for decades, actually. It said the leader of the opposition, but it should probably have said, many years ago, the Leader of the Official Opposition to indicate that there can be more than one opposition party registered in the House. And it also is updating the reference in The Legislative Assembly Act because it used to be section 61, and now it's section 52.16, so we want it to be up to date and modernized.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item No. 1–pass.
Item No. 2–oh–[interjection]
Yes, okay. Item No. 2: Details required for concluding the "Business of Supply".
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): So, this one is–there's a few provisions like this where we're, sort of, clarifying something that's already in the rules and already what the House does. So, currently, there's a provision in the rules stating that the business of supply–and that means all of Main and Capital, including BITSA, all of the bills and resolutions that are part of our financial process, what I refer to as the business of supply–all of those items must be concluded by the end of the fall sitting period, and the rules state that. However, the rules do not have any specific enforcement procedures included. Currently, the provisions are based on other sessional calendar rules.
In the current rule 2(1), in the sixth paragraph, says that these items will be dealt with following the provisions outlined in subrules 21 and 23, but we thought, for greater clarity, we should actually give them their own provisions. So that's what this rule does. This rule spells out these exact provisions. And the provisions are based on the same kind of provisions that apply on all of the other deadline days for specified bills, designated bills and so on.
So, the rule's quite lengthy because it identifies that, if the required actions for the business of Supply aren't concluded by the end of the last Thursday in the sitting prior to Remembrance Day week, which is the last week of a regular session, then the following provisions apply.
So, these include, if routine proceedings has not concluded 90 minutes prior to the usual adjournment hour, the Speaker must terminate and proceed to orders of the day. Further, if not already in Committee of Supply or Committee of the Whole, 60 minutes prior to the usual adjournment the House must resolve and resolve matters in committee. And also, 60 minutes prior, the Chairperson will interrupt and put questions, and matters of privilege and points of order are held until all votes are completed.
And this is in accordance with all of the other provisions we have for other deadline days; we just didn't have them specified for this one, so we felt it was better to be clear and have absolute clarity on how this should be handled. But it is, I should state again, just a codification of what we already do. So there's no change here; it's just more clarity.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comments?
Item No. 2–pass.
Item No. 3: Timing of second reading question period on specified bill deadline days.
Clerk: When changes were brought in in 2015-2016 for the specified and designated bills, we knew that there'd be some tweaking that would need to come up along the way as we had the experience dealing with the bills.
* (18:10)
So one of the tweaks that had been recommended is to change when the question period is held on a specified bill. The way it is now, the members who are entitled to speak for 10 minutes in the debate speak and then the last action is the question period. But that's the opposite of what we do with other bills, where we have the minister speak, we have the question period and then the other members speak.
So this is done as a change to make that in conformity with how the question period would follow, and it also adds a little bit of clarity in that, following the assigned speeches of those who are entitled to speak, the debate will be concluded pending the second reading completion date. And it also clarifies, if you have a bill that's a specified bill where you have started the process but not necessarily gotten that far or that there's still some debate outstanding, is that you do get to complete the debate as per the rule provision, just to make sure that everybody knows that the members who have the ability to speak for up to the maximum of 10 minutes get to do that regardless of whether the second reading is moved on that day or on a previous day.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comments or questions?
Item 3–pass.
Item 4: Clarification of timing for interruptions on specified bill deadline days.
Deputy Clerk: So, just as the title indicates, this is another clarification. A couple of things here. The rule as it's currently written indicates that by 3:30 on a deadline day certain actions will happen and also at 4 o'clock. We thought, for greater clarity, that should be 90 minutes prior to adjournment and 60 minutes prior to adjournment.
There's a couple of reasons for that. One is if this happens to fall on a Friday then that won't make any sense because we'd only sit until 12:30, and also, down the road, if we ever change the adjournment hour of the House then this wouldn't need to be changed, so that's fine.
So we changed those so it doesn't change how things happen: still at 90 minutes prior to usual adjournment the Speaker would terminate routine proceedings and proceed to orders of the day, and at 60 minutes prior she would interrupt and start putting questions.
We also added another provision, and this came up through one of our discussions, because if a deadline date does fall on a Friday sitting, we wanted–the rules group wanted to ensure that question period would be allowed to complete. So basically what this last part of it–so the new 2(15)(f), what this says is, rather than 90 minutes prior, the Speaker would terminate routine proceedings immediately on the conclusion of oral questions. So that means–because 90 minutes prior would be 11 o'clock, so if oral questions is, you know, running and wouldn't end until quarter after 11, it means we would have lost 15 minutes of question period, and nobody wants that.
So what it means is that, at that time, 11:15, say, that's when the Speaker would interrupt, so we'd skip petitions and grievances and anything else that might have come up in routine proceedings, go right to orders of the day, and then 30 minutes later would be when she would interrupt–or he or she, depending on the future–would interrupt those proceedings and start putting the question.
So it's really what we already do and just a special adaptation in case it ever lands on a Friday, which is a rare occurrence, but when we're writing rules we need to try to keep in mind rare occurrences and try to account for them.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item 4–pass.
Rule 5: Timing of second reading question period on designated bill deadline days.
Clerk: Just as we did some tinkering with the specified bills, we also should be doing comparable tinkering with the designated bills. The change on this page would also allow the question period to take place at the end of the comments as opposed to having–pardon me, after the minister has spoken instead of after the end of all the comments, and it also provides the clarity that, even if the debate had started on a previous day, the members who are identified to have the ability to speak up to 10 minutes will still maintain that right to do it before the question is put. Just to add that clarity.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item 5–pass.
Rule 6: Clarification of timing for interruptions on designated bill deadline days.
Deputy Clerk: So this is a parallel to the item two items ago where we did the same thing for specified bills, so we're changing it to 90 minutes and 60 minutes prior for designated bills as well.
And the other thing, actually, that I should have mentioned on that one, but it's addressed in both of these, is: in the current rules, there's a contradiction between subrule 2(21)(c) and 2(17) and 2(20) regarding whether or not debate is allowed on a second reading or concurrence and third reading deadline day.
The rule, as was written in 2015, had a bit of ambiguity there. We immediately began interpreting it as, yes, debate should occur, because that was the clear intent of the drafters in 2015, and you can refer to the Hansard from the meeting in June 2015 for confirmation of that.
So what we've done here is ensure that the rule recognizes that debate should happen. And the way that is recognized here is in the–in new rule 2(21)(c) it reads as follows: 60 minutes prior to the usual adjournment hour, the Speaker will interrupt debate and put all questions on all remaining bills with no further debate or amendment, except for the debate provisions allowed under 2(17) and 2(20).
And what that refers to is those limited debate provisions that happen on a deadline day where the minister gets 10 minutes, the critics get 10 minutes, the independents get 10 minutes and there's a question period.
So this is just clarifying back, again, practice and how that rule had already been interpreted.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item No. 6–pass.
And rule No. 7: Authorizing House leaders to call private members' bills for debate.
Deputy Clerk: So this one is–addresses sort of a long-standing eccentricity of private members' business. That is, we have a 'firty' well-developed process in the rules for how private members' resolutions are announced. There's a week's notice and they go on the Order Paper, and it's well‑established and it works very well.
For some odd reason, we've never had a process for how private members' bills are called in that first hour at 10 o'clock. And what has evolved is a House leader or a member of the caucus would stand up and say: Is there leave to consider Bill 203, for instance. Usually that works, but every so often it's led to political disagreements and leave is denied and we've actually had situations where we've lost a whole hour because we couldn't agree on what to happen–what should happen in that hour.
This gives the power to the House leaders of each caucus to call their own bills. And, beyond that, we added in more flexibility so that beyond just calling it, they could actually allocate within that hour, I want to do 20 minutes on this bill and then 40 minutes on another bill. And it gives each House leader the ability to do that on the day that is allotted for their caucus. And those allotments are provided for in other parts of the rules, as well.
And I do have to confess to something here. We very much appreciated the comments and the praise from members earlier about the package put together, but there's actually an error in this proposal. Just in the explanatory notes for item 7, the last bullet point refers to an item that was actually removed from process. So it doesn't invalidate the document in any way; it just–in case you're wondering what that's referring to, that should have been deleted. It's the last bullet that says, in accordance with the proposed rule change to rule 4, but we took out the change to rule 4. So that should have been deleted, so my apologies on that.
In any event, the idea here is that this will provide flexibility to House leaders and allow private members' business to be more productive.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item No. 7–pass.
Number 8: Clarification of process following divisions during private members' business.
Clerk: This was a rule that was put in the rules that we've never really adhered to and members really aren't fans of it. It would say that after you have a vote on an issue, or if you've deferred it for a division, you should only go on to the next item of business if there's leave or at least 30 minutes remain in private members' hour. But, again, we've–trying to make private hours–members' hour function more effectively.
This is something that we as a group thought should probably be deleted to make the process move a little bit more smoothly, not be so cumbersome.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item No. 8–pass.
Number 9: Clarification of scheduling process for independent-member-selected bills.
Deputy Clerk: So currently there's no specific process identified in the rules governing the scheduling of votes for independent-member-selected bills. There is a provision that it has to happen, but it doesn't say how it should happen.
* (18:20)
So the idea here was to give clarity for both the Government House Leader and for independent members. And so I'll just read through the new rule as it's written.
So this is new rule 24(4): As part of the written notice required in 24(3), an independent member and the Government House Leader or designate must agree on a date and a time for the debate and vote on a selected bill and notify the Speaker in writing. In the event of an impasse, the Speaker shall make a determination as to the scheduling of these debates, and the Government House Leader or designate will announce independent members' private members' bill for debate on Tuesdays.
And that whole process that I just read, that's what all–that is what has happened by practice, we just didn't have it written down. And as is consistent with several other provisions here, it's much better to have it written down and then it's absolutely unambiguous.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item 9–pass.
Number 10: Clarification of process for votes on the budget motion and amendments.
Clerk: On the sixth day of debate, we have stacked votes for amendments and subamendments that have been moved to the budget. It's always come up as a lurking question: well, what would happen if in a division on, say, the subamendment, the hour went beyond 5 o'clock? Would you have to rise because it's after the hour of adjournment, or should the House be staying to complete the disposition of the questions on the amendment and then on the main motion? We are putting in the rules for clarity that the House should not adjourn until all those required actions have taken place.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comments?
Item 10–pass.
Number 11: Challenges to rulings on matters of privilege.
The–Mr. Deputy Clerk.
Deputy Clerk: So, again, this is another example where we are codifying something that we already do. So it's adding a codification of existing practice stating that challenges to Speaker's rulings on matters of privilege require the support of at least four members or a House leader. And the wording of this rule is identical to the wording of rule 14(10) which is where a recorded vote must be requested by either a House leader or a member with the support of three other members. So we have the wording uniform because it's the same principle applied in both cases.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Shall item No. 11 pass?
An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege.
Madam Chairperson: The–Mr. Fletcher, on a matter of privilege.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): It was a joke.
Madam Chairperson: Okay, threw me right off. Where are we?
Item 11–pass.
Twelve: Clarification of process for votes on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and amendments.
Clerk: Similar to the issue I raised a few minutes ago with the disposition of the subamendment and amendment on the budget motion, we have that same issue with the Throne Speech, in that there is generally an amendment and a subamendment moved, and to provide clarity for everybody to understand and know that once we've started the voting process we have to finish putting the question on those three items before the House rises, and that would be on the subamendment, on the amendment and on the main motion.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item 12–pass.
Thirteen: Standing committee memberships.
Deputy Clerk: So this is a rule that modernizes the process by which the composition of standing committees is determined. Historically–and I'm pretty sure this rule goes back at least a hundred and thirty or forty years–it was something called a special committee of seven members, which I would refer to affectionately as archaic language. This is a–and basically what happens is that special committee of seven members must be appointed and meet and determine the proportional representation of members.
We discovered over the years that there was a few problems with this. Currently, the rule has no provision to address changes in House composition between general elections, first of all. It also–there's no provision to 'relect'–reflect the change in composition intersessionally when the committee of seven cannot report to the House, as was the case this summer when we had a by-election but the House wasn't meeting so we couldn't address committee membership.
So the proposal deletes the committee of seven model and instead assigns determination of standing committee membership composition to the House leaders in co-operation with the Speaker. It also specifies that not all changes in House composition would necessarily mean changes in committee composition. Now, I'll just go through some of the wording of the rule to explain what I mean by this.
So, first of all, it says–this is the new 83(1)–any time the House composition changes–so not just after an election–any time after the House membership changes, House leaders or designates of all recognized parties must meet to consider the representation of members based on the number of seats each recognized party holds in the House to serve on the following standing committees. And then it lists the standing committees.
Then, there has–four subprovisions: (a) if the House leaders or designates determine that a change in composition is required, they must report the new composition in writing to the Speaker–and, again, it says, if they determine there's a change–(b) In the event of an impasse, the Speaker shall determine standing committee membership composition and report that in writing to members. And I would just add a footnote that this is something you've heard us say a couple of times tonight which is really the most functional way of doing this. In all the cases, we try to let the House leaders sort it out themselves. But if they can't, we have a provision to allow the Speaker to come up with some sort of resolution.
Then, the new standing committee membership–this would be (c)–the new standing committee membership is effective upon receipt by the Speaker of a letter from the House leaders, or in the case of when the Speaker decides, once the Speaker reports to the members. And then that means it can be effective immediately. So if you're in an intersessional period, the–once that paperwork is signed either by the House leaders or the Speaker, then it's effective at that moment.
And then, at the next sitting of the House, the Speaker must table the letter. And that would be the letter either from the House leaders or from her–or he or she–must table the letter documenting the new standing committee membership composition.
So again, this is a modernization. It allows for more flexibility and also a reflection of reality because the special committee of seven members hasn't met in probably my lifetime, so this is just a more modern way to do the same thing that happened then.
Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?
Item No. 13–pass
Does the committee agree that the Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, as agreed to by this committee, will come into effect on November 20th, 2018? [Agreed]
Agreed and so noted.
Does the committee agree that the Clerk be authorized to renumber the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and make other minor corrections that in no way alter the intended meaning of these amendments? [Agreed]
Does the committee agree that the Clerk be authorized to prepare revised rulebooks incorporating all amendments, additions and deletions? Agreed? [Agreed]
Does the committee agree that these amendments to the rules are permanent? [Agreed]
Does the committee agree that for future reference, a document entitled Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals, October 2018, be included at the end of the Hansard transcript of this meeting? Agreed? [Agreed]
Does the committee agree that the Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, as agreed to by this committee, be reported to the House? [Agreed]
The hour being 6:28, what is the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members: Rise.
Madam Chairperson: Committee rise.
COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 6:29 p.m.
* * *
