3rd Session - 42nd Legislature, Rules of the House 1, Oct 12, 2021

TIME – 6:30 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Roblin)

VICE‑CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East)

ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6

Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Mrs. Driedger, Hon. Messrs. Goertzen, Helwer, Schuler

Ms. Fontaine, Hon. Mr. Gerrard, Messrs. Isleifson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lindsey, Wasyliw

APPEARING:

Ms. Patricia Chaychuk, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

Mr. Rick Yarish, Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

* * *

Madam Chairperson: Good evening, everybody. 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.

Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Scott Johnston (Assiniboia): I would nominate the member from Brandon East, Mr. Isleifson.

Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Brandon East has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Hearing no other nominations, the honourable member for Brandon East is elected Vice‑Chairperson.

You will find before you copies of a document entitled Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals–October 2021, which we will be considering tonight.

Does the committee agree to allow the Clerk and Deputy Clerk to speak on the record to provide an explanation for each amendment? Agreed? [Agreed]

Does the Government House Leader have any opening comments?

Hearing none, does–oh. Just wondering if the Government House Leader will be making any opening comments.

We would ask the Government House Leader to turn his video on and his microphone if he does wish to make comments.

We cannot hear the minister. Can he turn his microphone on?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I believe my microphone is on. Can you not hear me?

Madam Chairperson: It is now. Thank you.

Do you have any opening comments?

Mr. Goertzen: Not any, other than to thank the clerks and all those who are involved in the preparation of these rules and to thank the other opposition House leaders for their co-operative spirit in which these rules were done.

Madam Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the Official Opposition House Leader have any opening comments?

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): I will just reiterate what the Government House Leader said, and I just want to just backtrack a little bit.

I know that we did quite a few meetings during the summer. I know that Rick and Patricia, in particular, Rick, has been wanting us to meet for quite a while and has been that voice over here telling us to get ourselves in order here and to start meeting.

I know that this is actually just a fraction of the rules that you have in the queue. I know that we went through quite a bit this summer and, you know, we're finally able to agree upon this. I know that a lot of work goes into this, more than we can even know, obviously, because we're not a part of that process.

And so I just want to say miigwech to Rick and Patricia and to all the clerks that do this work, this important work. I know that every opportunity that I have, I always acknowledge the work that you all do. We wouldn't be able to do our jobs if it wasn't for the two of you and for the rest of the clerks. And so I say miigwech for that.

And likewise for the Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) and to the Liberal House leader, miigwech for what was actually a pretty good process; a long process during the summer but a very good process.

Miigwech.

Madam Chairperson: We thank the member.

Does the member for River Heights have an opening statement?

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, yes. Let me just make a couple of pretty quick comments.

I appreciate the work of both the other House leaders. I appreciate the work of Rick and Patricia and staff. I know I've received emails on this over the Thanksgiving weekend, so that is a particular effort and due diligence and care, which is much appreciated.

And I hope this is going to be the first step in a steady process of change for the rules as we update them and look carefully as we go step by step.

Madam Chairperson: We thank the member.

We will now begin consideration of the document. We will consider these amendments in numerical order and members may ask questions or comment on each proposal as we proceed.

For your reference, I will be referring to the proposal numbers listed on the left side of each page, starting with: proposal 1 regarding gender-neutral language.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): I'm going to just give a brief explanation but also to give you the heads-up that Rick and I are taking turns speaking to these items. We're going to do it a page at a time. So I will have all the items on page 3, he'll talk to the items on page 4, and so on, so going forward just so that you know we're tag-teaming.

The first one on gender-neutral language is something that's been desired for a long time, and that's to modify language in our rule book to make it gender-neutral and to replace his and her and he and she to something more gender-neutral, their and they and themselves, which is in fitting with where society is these days.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 1–pass.

Proposal 2: Definitions.

Clerk: We are proposing to add two definitions to the definition section, because when you do that, it replaces having to do explanations numerous times in the rules, and the two definitions we are proposing to add are definitions for Committee of the Whole House and critic.

* (18:40)

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 2–pass.

Proposal 3: Sessional calendar–ensuring enough sitting days for designated bills.

Clerk: This involves a change to rule 2(1). Members may know that, depending on the calendar from year to year, we may not have quite enough sitting days to deal with all stages of the designated bills. So this rule change will add a provision in such that if we need to sit for 17 days and the calendar won't give us 17 days, we will start the sitting in the fall two days earlier to accommodate for that.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comments or questions?

Mr. Gerrard: As House leaders, we looked at several options and this seemed to be the best in terms of being able to provide what's needed in the fall session.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further comments?

If not, shall proposal 3 pass? [interjection]

Oh, the honourable Clerk.

Clerk: Oh, I'm honourable; thank you.

Just to clarify, it may not necessarily be two days. It could be a week, depending on the calendar. I got excited and said it was two days, but it could be up to a week, depending on the calendar from year to year.

Madam Chairperson: Any comments from the House leaders on that one?

Proposal 3–pass.

Proposal 4: Sessional calendar–specified bills wording.

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, as well, to the House leaders for your kind words. This is something that the clerks take very seriously and Patricia and I put a lot of time into this, as do our whole crew. So those words are appreciated.

Madam Speaker, this item here is basically a wording update. We're adding the words, identified as, before specified. Specified, of course, is a category of bills that we have. The specified bills are the ones that the government can guarantee passage in the spring. In other rules, we use the phrase: identified as specified. This rule, when we originally wrote it, we just forgot to add that phrase in. So we're just adding that in to make it consistent with other rules.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 4–pass.

Proposal 5: Voting–deferral exceptions.

Deputy Clerk: So this–the existing subrule here, 14(4), is incomplete. It's missing some of the exceptions from the rule, and the rule itself identifies moments where you can defer a vote when a vote is requested in the House and there are certain conditions you can defer it.

So this list had five items listed there. There was three or four others that needed to be added on there. We actually tried adding them on, but it was kind of getting long and cumbersome and then we realized it's actually much simpler to just remove the list and say: unless otherwise stated in these rules, this rule will apply.

So that was a simpler fix and it was part of, I guess, a longer, ongoing challenge we have of trying to upgrade the rules that we have into sort of more modern, simplified plain language to make them easier for everyone to understand. So that's the purpose of this change.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 5–pass.

Proposal 6: Naming provisions and naming not subject to appeal.

Clerk: This is a proposed change to rule 18(1). It's doing two things: it's plain-languaging the rule and it's also removing the fact that the decision of the Chair is subject to appeal because it's not on matters of order. This is something that should've been changed in the rules years ago and we noticed it and decided it was time to get it changed to what it should be.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 6–pass.

Proposal 7: Divisions during private members' business.

Clerk: This is a proposed change to rules 23(7) and (8). It's often problematic when we're deferring a vote to 10:55 on Thursdays because the hour for private members' resolutions can end up getting wiped out if the vote ends up going for a full hour. So instead of having the vote deferred to that time, we were going to say: at 11:55, all deferred votes take place then. Because it would only be a much smaller interruption for a private member's resolution by having the vote at that time.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Mr. Gerrard: Just to say this is one that I had pushed for because what was happening was that the NDP or the official opposition were losing the ability to take forward private members' resolutions on a number of occasions. And this will mean that there can't be, then, a vote which happens at 10:55 and bells ring for an hour so that you lose the–this way, you will get the private members' resolution for the official opposition and you won't have to worry about other parties delaying it or deferring it or taking up the time of the private members' resolution.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any other comments from the House leaders? If not:

Proposal 7–pass.

Proposal 8: Members' statements–including names in Hansard.

Deputy Clerk: This proposal relates to a practice that's evolved in recent years where members would be making their members' statements, which are two-minute statements, and at the end of it they would ask leave to include names so that they would appear in Hansard. So, whether they're talking about a hockey team or a constituent group, they didn't want to use up part of their two minutes to list off all the names but they wanted them to be recognized. So the practice evolved for members to ask for leave, or agreement of the House, for that to be included in the Hansard transcript.

This puts some rules, some structure around that. It also simplifies it. Members don't–once this is adopted, members won't have to actually ask for leave; it will just be inferred–or, pardon me, it'll be–if they mention it in the statement, then they will be included in Hansard.

But I'd like to clarify one thing. In this rule, we–the rule states, in part, if a member indicates that they wish to include in the Hansard transcript the names of individuals referenced in their statement–and it goes on from there–what we mean by the word referenced, there, is not that–you're not going say the names and then have them listed again because that would be, obviously, redundant, so it's more like, you know, the team–so-and-so team won a championship last night. That's referencing the team. And then if you–and then if the member provides this list of names to Hansard before 5 o'clock on the same sitting day, and also if the names are legible, then they will be accepted.

We're also counting on members to ensure that they give us accurate lists. Something that Hansard staff has done over the years is when a list is provided, they'll go through and, you know, look up the team and make sure everything is spelled right, which is, as you can imagine, quite labour-intensive, especially if there were, say, several statements of 50 names each. So we're putting the onus on members to, if you're giving us a list, make sure that this is the correct list of names, everyone's spelled right and so on, because we're–if this becomes more common, we just literally don't have the resources to do that much research on a daily basis.

So that's the intent of this rule, and I think–[interjection]

Madam Chairperson: Madam Clerk.

Clerk: The upshot is if you adopt this, you no longer have to ask for leave for names to go into Hansard.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 8–pass.

Proposal 9: Precedence of government orders.

Deputy Clerk: This is an example of some archaic language that still exists in our rule book.

So, the term government order and private members' order is a term that was probably used 50, 60, 70 years ago fairly regularly. We no longer use that term. We just refer to, basically, government business or, if it's more specific, a government resolution or a government motion.

* (18:50)

So in–so what we've done here is just take out the reference to government orders, and we're just talking about how this is a–item standing under government business or under members' business. So it's really just updating the language to use the words–one that we all use in common parlance in the Assembly, but also this is actually how they're listed on the Order Paper, so it's really just updating this rule to our modern practice.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment? If not:

Proposal 9–pass.

Moving on, then, to proposal 10: Budget debate speaking time exceptions.

Clerk: We are proposing two changes to rule 34(9).

One is to put in the rule something which is a practice of the House we've had forever, that there's no time limit on the Minister of Finance in moving the budget motion. We talk about, you know, the leaders of the parties, but we don't acknowledge that the Minister of Finance or the minister moving a budget motion has a limited time as well. So that should be recognized in the rule.

And it also adds further clarity for if a party leader wants to give away their unlimited speaking time to another member they have to do that before that leader speaks in the debate.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment? If not:

Proposal 10–pass.

Proposal 11: 30-minute time limit exceptions.

Clerk: We are doing very minor changes here. One is to take away the term government order and instead substitute government motion because we don't really use the terms government order, and to also clarify that unless it's otherwise stated in the rules, no member gets to speak for more than 30 minutes in the debate. Just a more simplified way of putting it.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 11–pass.

Proposal 12: Committee of the Whole House.

Deputy Clerk: This rule is basically a clarification of terminology and improving the wording of the rule. It's also moving one component of this rule to a subsequent rule, which we'll get at in a second, which is–which proposes a speaking time limit, but is basically just a clarification of terminology.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 12–pass.

Proposal 13: Speeches in Committee of the Whole.

Deputy Clerk: So this is also a clarification of terminology and improving the wording of the rule, and we're also moving the time limit provision which was in the previous rule 75(1), now into 75(3), basically saying that all speeches in the Committee of the Whole shall not exceed five minutes. We're just putting it in there from a different rule.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 13–pass.

Proposal 14: Supply Chair rulings not subject to challenge.

Deputy Clerk: This is an omission from previous rule changes. Several–there was a time when any ruling of a Chairperson or a Speaker could be challenged. Several years ago that was changed to limited only to matters of privilege being challenged by–matters of privilege rulings made by the Speaker were able to be challenged. So this is actually something that should've been changed quite a while back, and so we're just updating it.

We also added a provision cross-referencing it to another rule. That's where you'll see that within 75(4) you'll see, subject to rule 18(2). Rule 18(2) governs what happens if there's disorder in a committee, and by disorder we're talking about, you know, a member that is really kind of going off script and is causing a lot of disturbance in the committee. We've had some experience with this kind of thing over the years.

So this allows the Chairperson, basically, to report that to the Speaker, and it would happen probably on a subsequent day, but it would allow the Chairperson to present a report to the Speaker saying such-and-such a member disregarded the authority of the Chairperson and so on, which would then get dealt with by the Speaker. This is just really a mechanism for that transferral. And 18(2) is a rule that already does that. We're just putting this in here as a cross-reference.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 14–pass.

Proposal 15: Opposition staff in the Chamber section of Supply.

Clerk: This is a change to rule 75(5) which puts into the rules a practice we've been following for the last number of years whereby staff from recognized opposition parties can come into the Chamber during Estimates to give assistance to the critic. It would formalize this in the rules.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Madam Chairperson and Madam Clerk–Madam Speaker, Madam Clerk.

The only comment I would have is that the rule is a reflection of traditional practice. I guess it's helpful for the opposition. Having been in opposition myself, I know it's helpful. It doesn't designate the number of staff, but I think the intention is that it would be a small table in front of the opposition critic, so likely not more than two is what I'm assuming.

Clerk: We do have that table there. Usually in the past it's been one staffperson at a time from an opposition party and they can switch staff in and out. It doesn't have to be the same person all afternoon, but it's usually been one at a time.

Ms. Fontaine: I would say that that's been the standard practice and I would imagine that when we have Estimates, we have other staff in other rooms, so I wouldn't imagine it being any more than that either, so I think that we all are on the same page in respect to that number.

Mr. Goertzen: I thank you both, the Opposition House Leader and the Clerk, for the clarification. I know this process, having gone through it before, it's important to have that on Hansard, as it's often reflected upon in terms of the intention of the rules.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further comments from the House leaders?

Proposal 15–pass.

Proposal 16: Motions to reduce line items in the Committee of Supply.

Clerk: This is a change to rule 76(1). We are making this change because you can't delete an Estimates item, so why should we have it stated in the rules, so we are going to have that taken out.

You also can't really vary an Estimates item, but you can reduce it, so that's why, again, we're plain-languaging the wording to be specific to the intent of what you can actually do.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 16–pass.

Proposal 17: Expiration of the 100 hours.

Deputy Clerk: So, rule 76(5) refers to what happens when we get to the end of our Estimates process and the 100 hours expire. This change isn't changing anything about how that rule works, it's just broadening the definition of who the Chairpersons are. Chairpersons are the Committee of the Whole House. It just sort of clarifies it and makes it consistent with other wording that we use as well. It's as simple as that.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 17–pass.

Proposal 18: Speeches in the Committee of Supply.

Deputy Clerk: This is another clarification of terminology, and we're also adding in here a reference to–we reference that speeches can be no more than five minutes, except for opening statements in Supply which are 10 minutes, and that's recognized in both points here. The wording is just sort of updated and we also added in the reference that speeches must be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. That's a phrase that we use with some regularity in the rules, so we're just sort of having it as another statement here just as a reminder.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 18–pass.

Proposal 19: Seating in Chamber Supply.

* (19:00)

Deputy Clerk: So, to–sort of referencing–cross-referencing to some extent–pardon me, that was about staff, this is about members–the one–the rule the Clerk was mentioning.

This rule 77(3) puts into the rule something that has been allowed by leave. It's during Committee of Supply sittings in the Chamber. Basically, a minister presenting their Estimates or a critic for the minister's department as well as any other member participating in debate are allowed to sit in the front bench.

When we do Committee of Supply in the Chamber, we don't necessarily need to use all three rows. We put everyone in the front row, then there's a little bit more ability to have a back and forth. It just makes it a little bit more collegial.

Clerk: And the big difference here is members who are not critics can sit in the first row and speak from that spot. Because they can sit there now, but if they want to be recognized on the record to speak, they have to go back to their assigned seat. This rule changes that. They can be speaking from the front row.

And it would be assumed that opposition members would be seated in the front row on the opposition side and government members in the government side on the–in the first row.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Mr. Goertzen: Only that I wanted to clarify, I think, exactly what the Clerk has now said–that it doesn't state it explicitly in this rule, it simply says they can sit–anybody can sit in the front row, but it would be to the assigned seats that they are–for their caucus.

Madam Chairperson: Any further comments?

Mr. Gerrard: I–that–just for clarification, in terms of, for example, the Liberal members, we would be able to not only sit where there is a caucus member sitting. Is that correct?

In other words, you know, because there's not a caucus seat on the front row, then Liberals would not be able to sit on the front row. Is that correct?

Clerk: That is correct. Not unless the Liberals did have a seat on the front row, such as when they have four or more members, then they do have a front-row seat. But you couldn't take over a seat that's been assigned to another caucus.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further comments from the House leaders?

Proposal 19–pass.

Proposal 20: Altering the Estimates sequence.

Clerk: This is a change to rule 77(9), and it is going to streamline the process for changing the Estimates sequence.

The way we have to do it right now is it has to be done by motion in the House, and it has to be done in the House. We've had situations happen in the past where we've been in a section of the Committee of Supply and they wanted to change the sequence. Well, we've had to recess Supply, reconvene in the House and then change the sequence.

Now the Estimates sequence can be changed by written agreement of the government and other recognized House leaders and it just gets tabled, whether it's in Committee of Supply or in the House.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 20–pass.

Proposal 21: Voting in Supply on Fridays.

Clerk: This is basically a plain language redrafting of 77(13) to make it a little bit more explicit about what you can and cannot do when Committee of Supply is sitting on a Friday.

It clarifies you cannot have a request for a quorum count; a motion for the committee to rise is only decided on a voice vote, meaning you cannot ask for a recorded vote on it; a request for a recorded vote on any question must be deferred until the next sitting of the Committee of Supply; and after a formal vote has been deferred, that section of Supply must rise.

And after the Committee of Supply rises on a Friday, no other business may be called in the House.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 21–pass.

Proposal 22: Global debate in Supply.

Deputy Clerk: I will state right upfront that this change brings me some joy. This is a process–this refers to basically the manner in which debate in a committee of–section of the Committee of Supply proceeds. Years ago, I'd say decades ago, the process used to be what we would call chronological or line by line. So you'd do resolution 2, and then you would finish, ask all questions on resolution 2, you'd pass it, then you'd move to resolution 3 and so on and so on.

For–I've been here almost 21 years, and before I started, it had already evolved to what we call a global debate system. So rather than doing it chronologically, you'd have one big discussion about all the department, and then you'd ask all the questions at the end.

For 20-some years we've been asking leave at the beginning of every section: does the committee agree to a global debate? It's–for a clerk, it gets to be kind of like fingernails on a chalkboard after a while because you know it's going to be, but you just want it to get there.

Anyway, this change puts that into the rules. Basically, all debates will be global debates; we won't have to ask that question anymore. And then it also spells out that when that's done, then the resolutions will be passed and you'll finish the department as it goes forward.

And so this is a change that is a relief to clerks because it just simplifies the process; probably a relief to members, too, because you don't have to go through that little charade at the beginning of the process.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Mr. Gerrard: Just a clarification. In (c) it talks about items can be called for the purpose of moving amendments. Maybe you can just outline the process for moving amendments when we are not calling the line items.

Deputy Clerk: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard. That's actually–that's a good question.

So what this generally refers to is it's quite common in many sections when we're dealing with the department, when we get to the end, we get to the section that includes the minister's salary. There's often a desire on an opposition's part to move a motion to reduce that minister's salary. So that's what–that's primarily what this is referring to. It could refer to other motions, but historically it's exclusively been motions to reduce the minister's salary.

So what this–it–the–this remains in the rule to allow that process to happen, because if we're not–if we're going in a global debate and we're not calling it line by line, then it makes it a bit murky as to when and how a member could move such a motion, but this item, that provision, is there to ensure that members can still do that if that's their choice.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment? If not:

Proposal 22–pass.

Proposal 23: Adding the Capital Supply resolution to the Estimates consideration list.

Deputy Clerk: This links up with a change that will be be coming later in the package as well where we're streamlining something that's called the main and capital process. There's one item called the Capital Supply resolution, which historically has been included in that main and capital process.

In order to streamline the main and capital process, this rule would move that resolution to be considered along with all of the other departmental Estimates resolutions. So when we have our Estimates sequence, we would now have one extra line in there that says the Capital Supply resolution, and it would get passed in one of the sections of the Committee of Supply as opposed to in that part of that main and capital process.

So everything is still being passed and being considered properly, we're just moving when it happens from main and capital into the departmental Estimates part of the process.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders–oh, Mr. Deputy Clerk.

Deputy Clerk: And it's tied to what we're doing in item 31, which will be described when we get there in a few minutes, but it's all part of the same change.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comments? If not:

Proposal 23–pass.

Proposal 24: Motion to leave the Chair.

Deputy Clerk: This–the motion referred to in this rule relates to how the House used to resolve into Committee of Supply, probably 20-plus years ago. Used to–it–now the Government House Leader just stands up and says, Madam Speaker, would you please resolve into the Committee of Supply, and the House would do that. There used to be a process, a couple-of-stage process, that actually predates me, and it remained in the rules, was changed, and then this reference to it remained in the rules. And the Clerk might be able to give a little more context on that.

Clerk: That's actually where the grievance procedure used to be. It used to be when a motion was to resolve into the Committee of Supply, that's when grievances were done many years ago. But we've streamlined that, and grievances are now part of routine proceedings.

* (19:10)

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment? If not:

Proposal 24–pass.

Proposal 25: Presenting petitions.

Clerk: This is a change to rule 133(4), and I hope I'm not shattering any illusions, because the current rule says it's the Speaker who vets petitions. Well, we're just saying, let's reflect reality and have it say the Clerk examines the petitions.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any comments from the House leaders?

If not–oh, Mr. Goertzen.

Mr. Goertzen: Not specific to what's being proposed here, but just to advocate for broader discussions on petitions more generally in the House in future rules discussions.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further comments by House leaders?

Proposal 25–pass.

Proposal 26: Deferral of report stage amendments.

Clerk: This is a proposal to delete current rule 139(7) because it is a redundant practice. It was based on the former practice we used to have with report stage amendments where they were distributed and considered on the same afternoon, and, on occasion, members would want to have those report stage amendments deferred. We have since changed that practice where report stage amendments are distributed on one day and then considered on another, so we don't need this provision for deferring.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 26–pass.

Proposal 27: Speaking times on report stage amendments–update.

Madam Speaker–Madam Clerk?

Clerk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we feel interchangeable sometimes.

This is a proposed change to rule 139(10), and we are saying that it should say leaders of recognized parties because we may have more than one official opposition party and it's a little bit more inclusive if we just say leaders of recognized parties.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 27–pass.

Proposal 28: Grouping report stage amendments.

Deputy Clerk: This process has something that's been used occasionally in recent years and so we're codifying it in the rules. So rule 139(11) already says that the Speaker may select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage, but it doesn't actually give any mechanics as to how that should work.

Now, we've been doing this over the last number of years. It's actually becoming a little bit more common in recent years, and we've been following some practice from the House of Commons, and we've now done it, I'd say, at least a half dozen, maybe more, times. And in each case the Speaker provides a ruling giving an explanation as to how we're combining them and so on. And so we're basically putting that the explanation we've used in those rulings is now forming the basis of this rule.

And the basic concepts of it are a member, any member, might say–let's say they file five different report stage amendments to a bill. If–this is a key point–if the member requests the Speaker will see to combining them. The Speaker is not going to automatically combine a member's report stage amendments, and if the member doesn't want it to happen, then it won't happen; each report stage will get its own debate and its own vote. But if the member requests it, then we'll use the guidelines found in the new version of 139(11).

So, basically, they–those are if several different amendments could form the same–the subject of a single debate; in other words, they're changing–they're making a similar change in a few different spots in the rule, then that would be a rationale for combining them, or if–they could also be combined according to the location they're in where they're inserted in the bill and when they relate to the same clause or clauses.

So then amendments that are grouped like that will be moved consecutively, so you move the one, you move the other, then it'll be the subject of a one single debate and one vote. So it could be three different report stage amendments and they'll have one vote on it and the vote–the result of that vote would apply to all three of them.

And again, if the member doesn't want them grouped, then they won't be grouped. It has to be at the member's request.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

If not, shall resolution 28 pass? [interjection] Shall proposal No. 28 pass?

Proposal 28–pass.

Proposal 29: Appendix D–budget day procedure

Deputy Clerk: So this–we're now into the appendices of the rule book. This one relates to the procedure for budget day.

Currently, the title of this refers to budget procedure, which is just inaccurate because there's more to budget than to budget day, but this process is specific to that one day when the Minister of Finance presents the Budget Address.

So we're adding in budget, we're adding in the word day to the title, and then we're also, consistent with the first change in this package, we're making a gender-neutral change too. And this is only in the English version because in the previous–in the current English version, it says: There are two messages from His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor. So we're just changing that to: There are two messages from the Lieutenant Governor, not assigning gender to it at all.

I think the Clerk has a comment.

Clerk: To just provide a little bit of extra context to what Rick is saying, we can't, just as the procedural staff, change this on our own because it is in the rule book as an appendices. We have to get approval from the Rules Committee to do a change like this.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment? If not:

Proposal 29–pass.

Proposal 30: Appendix D–streamlining the main and capital process.

Clerk: We are doing some proposed changes to the Main and Capital Supply procedure. We previously, in the meeting about 10 minutes ago, said that we were going to take the Capital Supply resolution out of main and capital and put it into departmental Estimates.

So we've added that change in here. We're also doing a change where we are going to group the first readings together for the Main and Capital Supply bills because that will reduce some steps and it will also reduce some waiting times because now we have to do one bill, first reading, distribute it, wait 'til it's distributed, then do second reading, then go to the next bill for first reading.

In this case, we could do the first readings one after another, and by the time we get to the second reading, we're ready to go ahead on the first bill, and we're, you know, cutting–saving the House, you know, a minute or two of time.

Madam Chairperson: Do the House leaders have any comment?

Proposal 30–pass.

Proposal 31: Appendix E–speaking times.

The honourable Deputy Clerk.

Deputy Clerk: That feels like a promotion, being honourable all of a sudden.

So this is a change. Actually, there's a number of changes to the appendix E in our rule book, which is something that was inserted in the rules, I think, about in the neighbourhood of 20 years ago, and it's basically just a reference list. Because there are many different provisions throughout the rules saying how long members can speak on certain items: members' statements are 20 minutes, debate on a government bill is 30, debate on private members', 10 and so on. It goes on and on.

So this was an idea to put them all in one place to make a quick reference chart. And so we put it in there about 20 years ago and haven't done a lot with it since then. So this is really just updating to reflect a number of changes that have happened in the rule book over the years.

And, again, it's now, I think, in–it used to take up one page in the rule book and now it's about two or three, but the idea of it is just to have a quick cross-reference: how long do I get to speak on a member's statement or whatever? That's all in one spot for members.

Madam Chairperson: Any comments from the House leaders?

Mr. Goertzen: More a question. Rule 135, so the first reading of bills is 30 seconds for the mover of the motion. That's 30 seconds on the moving of the motion or the description of the bill?

Deputy Clerk: Thank you for the question, Mr. Premier (Mr. Goertzen). That is for the–having the purpose of the bill explained, and this actually relates to another change that is under consideration, currently been deferred.

* (19:20)

Over the years, the rule regarding first readings says that the mover may make a brief statement, but historically, successive Speakers for 20 or 30 years have interpreted brief as 30 seconds. So there is a rule–a further part of this rule that will be changed if the rules group decides to change it in the future that will specify that as 30 seconds, or they could put a different time on it, but that's what's been interpreted over the years.

So this appendix is sort of referencing practice what currently has been observed for introduction of bills. Basically, the idea behind it is you're not debating the bill, you're just saying this is the purpose of the bill, I hope you vote for it.

Mr. Goertzen: I would just say that some of those 30 seconds seem like the longest 30 seconds of my life and–but I'll look forward to seeing this rule put in practice.

Clerk: If you think back in your memory banks, it's very rare that a Speaker intervenes when a member's speaking at first reading. If a member's going on two or three minutes, then you might start to see those time signals coming out, but usually the Speaker gives a little bit of latitude, so they have been longer than 30 seconds. They've been 45 up to a minute.

Madam Chairperson: Any further comments?

Mr. Gerrard: Just under motions or resolutions of government, there's a note here: member may divide speaking time equally with another member of the same party. That's so that you can have two members of a party using the 30-minute time slot?

Deputy Clerk: That's correct, Dr. Gerrard. There is a provision in one of our rules already which–it's not used very often, but it allows you to–basically, because we have a rotation between parties, this allows you to–you can use half or less the–of the amount of time, but you can fit two members in where one would normally speak.

So rather than one member speaking for 30 minutes, two members could speak for 15 minutes each from the same party before we have to go on a rotation.

Clerk: We haven't seen it happen recently, but we often would see that in the past with, like, Throne Speech and budget debates, when they're trying to get more members up speaking, they would divide their time up. But that has seemingly fallen out of practice in the last several years.

Mr. Gerrard: Does that only apply to a recognized party?

Deputy Clerk: That's a good question. I'm not sure I recall. Do you recall off the top of your head, Patricia? I could look it up. I think it could apply to an independent member but I'm going to reserve the right to double check and get back to you on that, Dr. Gerrard.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further comments from the House leaders?

Proposal 31–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 force at the commencement of the Fourth Session of the 42nd Legislature?

Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I just want some clarifications because I didn't have an opportunity after everyone you asked for a question from the government–from the House leaders.

But on 13, when we look at changes there, we have the Committee of the Whole House. So on 12 we added the word House to the Committee of the Whole House; 14, we added of the Whole House to become the Whole House. But on 13, speeches in Committee of the Whole, we did not add the word House.

So I'm just wondering, is there a Committee of the Whole and a Committee of the Whole House, or is that just an oversight?

Madam Chairperson: Mr. Deputy Clerk.
[interjection]

Deputy Clerk: No, you can go ahead.

Madam Chairperson: Madam Clerk.

Clerk: They are one and the same. The Committee of the Whole House is Committee of the Whole. It just gets called one or the other, but they are the same.

Mr. Isleifson: So I'm just wondering then, just to keep consistency, if we should add House on 13. I know it's passed already, but, to me, it would make more sense to add the word Committee of the Whole House so that we have some consistency and flow in the document.

Madam Chairperson: Is there any further debate on this, or shall I ask for leave to go back to 13 to make this change? [Agreed]

So then we will go back to 13, Speeches in Committee of the Whole, and, as requested, it will be changed to Whole House. Agreed? [Agreed]

Clerk: To clarify, it would be changed in both the title and in the text of 75(3) to say Committee of the Whole House in both locations.

Madam Chairperson: Does the committee then 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 make minor corrections to the French version of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to ensure the equivalence of both versions of the rules, ensuring that they in no way alter the intended meaning of these amendments? [Agreed]

Does the committee agree that the Clerk be authorized to prepare revised rule books incorporating all amendments, additions and deletions? [Agreed]

Does the committee agree that these amendments to the rules are permanent? [Agreed]

Does the committee agree that for future reference, document entitled, Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals–October 2021, be appended at the end of the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [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]

This concludes the business before the committee, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members here for their work this evening.

Clerk: Just to clarify, did we cover a coming-into-force date for these rules as a recommendation to the House?

Madam Chairperson: That was the first question posed and approved.

So this concludes the business before the committee, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members here for their work this evening.

I would also like to extend thanks for all the hard work that has been done behind the scenes to get this package of rule changes before us today.

Lastly, I would like to give special recognition to our hard-working translators who worked through the Thanksgiving weekend to ensure that a French version of all the proposals would be available for the committee report on this evening–on this meeting.

The hour being 7:33, what is the will of the committee?

Some Honourable Members: Rise.

Madam Chairperson: Committee rise, and thank you, everybody.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 7:33 p.m.