LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Hon. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tyler Blashko (Lagimodière)
ATTENDANCE – 7 — QUORUM – 4
Members of the committee present:
Hon. Min. Fontaine, Hon. MLA Lindsey
Messrs. Blashko, Jackson, Johnson, MLAs Lamoureux, Moroz
APPEARING:
Rick Yarish, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
Tim Abbott, Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
Kelvin Goertzen, MLA for Steinbach
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
* * *
The 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.
Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson.
Are there any nominations?
MLA Mike Moroz (River Heights): I nominate MLA Blashko.
The Chairperson: Any other nominations?
Hearing no–Mr. Blashko has been nominated. Do you accept?
Mr. Tyler Blashko (Lagimodière): I do.
The Chairperson: Hearing no other nominations, then Mr. Blashko is elected the Vice-Chairperson.
So you'll find before you copies of a document entitled Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals–May 2024–Virtual Rules & Other Minor Amendments, which we will be considering today.
Does the committee agree to allow the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk to speak on the record to provide an explanation for each amendment? [Agreed]
Does the Government House Leader have any opening comments?
An Honourable Member: No. Or, well, yes, I do, actually. I want to–
The Chairperson: The honourable House leader.
Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): Miigwech, Honourable Speaker.
I just want to acknowledge our Clerk and Deputy Clerk for the amount of work that went into this. Those of us that have been on the rules committee for way too long know that there are lots of meetings that go into this, lots of discussions with everybody around the table, but certainly, it doesn't compare to the work that goes on behind the scenes to make all of these legislative changes.
So I just want to acknowledge the work that you both did.
Miigwech.
The Chairperson: Thank you, Minister.
Does the Official Opposition House Leader have any opening comments?
Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, obviously, thank you for all your hard work and I look forward to getting through the rest of the rules here throughout the summer. So keep up the great work.
And I know it's many–you're stretched very thin as it is now, so we do appreciate you working on these and getting them through just in the appropriate time.
The Chairperson: We thank the member for his statement.
Does the member for Tyndall Park have any opening comments?
MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I just echo the thoughts that have been shared. I want to thank you both for all the work that you've put into this and being patient as we go back and forth on it and all of your efforts in the House.
The Chairperson: We thank the member.
We will now begin the 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.
So away we go. Proposal 1? Agreed–Proposal 1 regarding rule 1(1), Procedure generally.
Does the Clerk have a comment?
Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Thank you to the committee. Also thank you to everyone who's participated in getting this package to here. Tim, as the Deputy Clerk, and I are the ones who are here speaking to it, but there's political staff that work on this as well and we're grateful for them, as well as our own procedural staff, the four clerk assistants and our Journals associate are all part of the process that brings us together and we're grateful to all of them.
So as you know, most of the provisions in this package relate to virtual sittings of the House. There are a few other unrelated amendments and we'll describe those as we go along.
The virtual proposals are directly based on the Sessional Order that the House has been using since October of 2020 and they've been transferred into this package with some tweaks and some other small changes.
So, having said that, the first item: Procedure generally. This provision tweaks how the House and committees are to be referenced, making it consistent with wording used in the rules proposals within this package.
The Chairperson: Do the members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, shall proposal 1 regarding rule 1(1) pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
The Chairperson: So, proposal 2–[interjection]–proposal 1 regarding rule 1(1)–pass.
Rule–or, proposal 2 regarding rule 1(3): The rules and orders and forms of proceedings of the Legislative Assembly–[interjection]–definitions.
Clerk: So the terms moderator and virtual are used throughout these new rules, and so they are defined here at the beginning, along with other definitions currently existing in the rules for reference and clarity.
The Chairperson: Do the members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 2 regarding rule 1(3)–pass.
Proposal 3 regarding virtual proceedings enabled–shall–[interjection]–regarding rule 1(4).
Clerk: So this key provision is essentially the enacting clause that allows–that enables the members to participate virtually in proceedings of the House and the committees. This is kind of the meat of–well, pardon that term–but this is the key point that allows virtual proceedings to happen. A lot of other provisions speak to other elements of this, but this is the one that says you can actually participate virtually, and that's a valid participation in a proceeding of the House or the committee.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 3 regarding rule 1(4)–pass.
Proposal 4 regarding rule 1(5): Requirements for virtual participation.
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Tim Abbott): Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to be here this evening and speak on the record.
Proposal 4 adds a requirement for virtual members to have their video turned on and directs them to have their microphones muted when they are not speaking.
Whilst it's not in the rules, members will continue to be encouraged and requested to use a headset when participating in proceedings.
The Chairperson: Do the members have any comments? Yes.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, just a general question on the whole document.
You said there was minor changes. I–the one I reviewed in here, I couldn't find them. Will you point out the changes, when we get to them, from the documents that were handed out previously?
Clerk: Yes, we could do that. They were literally, like, typos and things that we forgot to underline, that sort of thing. There wasn't really any substantive changes. So I don't know if you'd want us to identify that, or–
Mr. Johnson: Only if there's a substantial, meaningful change. Yes, if it's just typos, I'm fine.
But thank you.
The Chairperson: Any other comments?
Shall rule 4–[interjection]–proposal 4 regarding rule 1(5)–pass.
Proposal 5 regarding rule 2(1): Sitting periods–Indigenous Veterans Day, Orange Shirt Day.
Deputy Clerk: This provision amends the sessional calendar to ensure the House does not sit on Indigenous Veterans Days or Orange Shirt Day.
* (18:10)
When either of these days occur during a sitting week and the House loses a sitting day, this rule will require an additional sitting day to be added at the beginning of the full sitting to ensure that there are sufficient days to allow for the completion of all stages of designated bills.
This change adds a new subrule called Days of Observance, which includes these two days. Other days could be added to this in the future if the need arose. There's also–and this relates to the point for Mr. Johnson–there's been a minor wording update to–'implove'–improve clarity of this rule and remove 'superfulous' text that should have been taken out after a previous round of rule changes. And members of the committee can see what's been taken out on page 3.
It's the third paragraph that starts, these extended sitting days, through to the bottom of the four items listed just below it, the second reading, committee stage, report stage and concurrence. That has been removed. It related to a rule that–the wording of the rule prior to the changes made in 2022.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Shall item 5, rule 2(1) sitting periods pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
The Chairperson: Proposal 5 regarding rule 2(1)–pass.
Proposal 6 regarding rule 2(8)–yes.
An Honourable Member: So you passed rule 2(1) but there's rule 2(2). Are we fine? Like, sorry for my–like, I want to make sure we pass the whole thing. So you said rule 2(1), but on page four, there's rule 2(2) inclusive of proposal 5. Do we need to pass it?
Deputy Clerk: There are two rules contained in that proposal. By passing the proposal, it encompasses both of those rules.
The Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying that.
So now we're on proposal 6 regarding rule 2(8): Specified government bills.
Shall rule–shall item number–Mr. Yarish.
Clerk: This provision adds to the rules the recent practice whereby the Government House Leader specifically identifies which bills will be considered specified. This practice has evolved to add clarity to the process and codifying it in the rules here will ensure that clarity in the future.
So we've been doing this for a few years because it's been useful to the process of those deadline days, but it wasn't precisely in the rules, and we've now made it very explicit in the rules.
The change also adds extra clarity to state that no private member's bills can be specified or designated, because the current rule actually just said opposition bills, which was incomplete because it applies to any private member's bills regardless of whether they're opposition, government or independent. So that was clarified.
The rule also actually adds a provision to table a list again at concurrence and third reading, which is a new provision but through discussions, this was seen to be beneficial because there's a possibility that a government might, after committee stage on a bill, might decide they don't want to proceed with a bill. This has happened once or twice with both governments that have been in power in recent decades.
Every once in a while, they get past the committee stage and they decide they don't want to proceed. Without having this provision here, the government would essentially be locked into having to let that bill pass unless they voted against it, which governments aren't usually wanting to do.
So this allows clarity, both at second reading and in third reading and it gives that opportunity for a government to withdraw something if they felt the need. Oh, unlikely to happen commonly, but it's good to have the provision there.
The Chairperson: Do committee members have any comments?
Proposal 6 regarding rule 2(8): Specified government bills, Government House Leader to table list–pass.
For–regarding proposal 7: Emergency procedures–emergency provisions regarding rule 2(8.1).
Clerk: So, in 2020, the COVID pandemic showed that under exceptional circumstances, the Assembly must be able to be flexible. This provision is taken and adapted from the Sessional Order, and allows the Speaker and the leaders of the recognized parties to react to emergency situations when the House isn't sitting.
In March of 2020, we were sitting, and the House leaders of the day were able to make, essentially, a leave request that gave us the ability to not sit, and spelled out how we could come back. If such an emergency happened when the House weren't sitting that we wouldn't have been able to do that. We would have had to go into session, figure it out, and then move on from there.
This allows you to do it either in session or, if it's outside of session, it can be in writing from those people identified; as I said, the leaders of the recognized party and the Speaker.
The Chairperson: Do the members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 7 regarding rule 2(8.1)–pass.
Proposal 8 regarding rule 5(1): Quorum.
Clerk: So this is one of a number of relatively small provisions, but we're just inserting the words, and members participating virtually, because it enables members to be counted as part of quorum if they're participating virtually or if they're in the House.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 8 regarding rule 5(1)–pass.
Next, proposal 9 regarding rule 5(3): Quorum bells.
Clerk: So similarly, flowing from the last one, this is just revised wording to include virtual participation of MLAs during quorum counts.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 9 regarding rule 5(3)–pass.
Proposal 10 regarding rule 8(2): Election of Speaker exempt from virtual provisions.
Clerk: So, as members know, a new Speaker is elected through a secret ballot process that takes place in the Chamber, and because of the highly sensitive and confidential nature of electing a Speaker, only members physically present in the Chamber may be eligible to vote.
This is the only–this will be the only rule in the rule book that is exempt from these virtual provisions. Every other aspect of participating in the House, members can do virtually, but not this; at least not yet.
This provision has been added to allow the House leaders specifically to instruct the Clerk to develop procedures to enable virtual participation during the secret ballot process in the event that it's not physically possible for all members to be present in the Chamber due to an emergency or in another situation.
I will commit, and I'll commit my team, to developing a procedure to have a virtual participation for secret ballot. We haven't figured it out yet, and we wanted to move forward with this package, so we put this provision in here that, in the event–and we shouldn't be needing to elect a Speaker until after the next general election in several years–but if, for some reason, that needs to happen before then, we will figure out how to do that, and we will definitely figure out and put it into place in the rules before that next general election.
So over the next couple of years, we're going to work out what's the best process to do this, and then we'll, at a subsequent rules committee, we will adopt that into the rules, and then it'll be there. So this is effectively a placeholder until we figure out how to manage that.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 10 regarding rule 8(2)–pass.
Regarding proposal 11 regarding rule 4(1)–14(1): Termination of debate before division.
Deputy Clerk: This is the first of three provisions that will enable members to vote, both in the House and when participating virtually.
* (18:20)
So provision 11 enables virtual participation of MLAs during divisions or a recorded vote by simply removing the word Chamber.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 11 regarding rule 14(1)–pass.
Proposal 12 regarding rule 14(2): Entering and leaving during divisions.
Deputy Clerk: This provision clarifies the participation of MLAs during divisions by removing the reference to the Chamber and also tidying up the language.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 12 regarding rule 14(2)–pass.
Proposal 13 regarding rule 14(9): Declaration of voting intentions.
Deputy Clerk: This provision removes the requirement for a member to stand when declaring how they were to vote. This helps account for those participating virtually, because we do not need those members to stand, and it's one of a number of rules that makes that change in this proposal document.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Proposal 13 regarding rule 14(9)–pass.
Proposal 14 regarding rule 18(1): Naming of a member for an offence in the House.
Clerk: Members would be familiar, at least conceptually, with the idea of naming a member; it's the process by which the Speaker can remove member–literally, physically eject them from the Chamber. So this provision allows the Speaker to order the moderator, and actually, the Sergeant-at-Arms as well, to remove a remember from the virtual proceedings of the House. So it's the digital equivalent of removing someone from the Chamber; we take them out of the Zoom call.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, it just says, or direct the member to terminate their virtual participation. Can–well, whoever; the Speaker, the staff–can they terminate it, or does the member have to terminate it?
Clerk: That's coming.
The Chairperson: So, any other comments?
Hearing none, proposal 14 regarding rule 18(1)–pass.
Proposal 15 regarding rule 18(4): Suspension from service of House for session.
Clerk: So to answer Mr. Johnson–Mr. Johnson's question, this is where that happens. So there's stages of the naming process, there's a number of things that happen. But specifically, at the point that someone is named, they are asked to voluntarily leave, and the sergeant will escort them out of the Chamber.
But if a member decides they don't want to leave and they want to put up some resistance to that, and the sergeant is actually instructed to remove them by force, then they are removed for the remainder of that session. So it–the digital equivalent of the sergeant actually taking arms on a member and moving them out is–the sergeant will, if a member refuses to leave the Zoom call, literally, the Sergeant-at-Arms will go over to the moderator's desk and remove them from the Zoom call.
So it's the digital equivalent of 'excorting' them out of the Chamber.
The Chairperson: Any other comments from committee members?
Proposal 15 regarding rule 18(4)–pass.
Proposal 16 regarding rule 19(1): Decorum on adjournment.
Clerk: This provision adds wording to reflect that virtual members do not need to rise in their place at the end of each sitting day, similar to the provision that was mentioned a few minutes ago. We don't–virtual members aren't required to stand, so we removed things like–words like shall stand, and changed it to members participating virtually shall remain in place.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 16 regarding rule 19(1)–pass.
Proposal 17 regarding rule 19(4): Use of electronic devices.
Clerk: So this is regarding the use of electronic devices, and of course, that's something that's evolved over the last 20, 30 years as electronic devices have become more ubiquitous in our world.
Prior to COVID, members were allowed to have them in the Chamber but weren't allowed to really use them unless they were in the loge, and so on. But when COVID happened and members were–many members weren't in the Chamber, it became necessary, especially for whips and House leaders, to be able to communicate with their members who were virtual, to let them know what was coming up in the House.
So in the Sessional Order, there was more–the provisions were added to make it more flexible to use electronic devices. So this one adds wording to update to the use of electronic devices following new practices since the introduction of virtual.
And as the Assembly now broadcasts gavel to gavel, the reference to oral questions was removed because that's rather old rule read to allow the rules to encompass the whole sitting day and committee meetings.
So it's exactly the process we've been using for the last couple of years. And really, now, the only prohibition on electronic devices is that you shouldn't be holding them while you're answering a question in question period or whatever. It shouldn't be on camera.
You can still have a tablet, you know. Members sometimes use tablets to read speeches from, which is fine. The idea is that they shouldn't be on camera and that's essentially what the–that's what the new rule says.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 17 regarding rule 19(4)–pass.
Proposal 18 regarding rule 24(1): Routine Proceedings.
Clerk: So this is a–you heard me mention off the top that there were a few items in this package that were suggested through the rules group process that don't have anything to do with virtual. This is one of them. This was a suggestion from one of the members of the committee to allow for a new process to be part of routine proceedings, which is the introduction of guests.
Currently, the Speaker does all of the introduction of guests. Sometimes members will make reference to guests while they're in a member's statement and so on, but the sort of more formal introduction of guests is done by the Speaker.
This provision–and there's a second part to it that'll come in a moment–this provision allows members to do that, to have an–to introduce their own guests. And in a moment, I'll show you the–we have some rules about how to do that. But this is just the one that inserts it between members' statements and oral questions, which is typically when the Speaker will introduce guests, as well.
I will also add that the adoption of these rules for members introducing guests does not change the Speaker's prerogative to introduce guests either at this point or at any point during the day.
MLA Fontaine: I thought that when our last meeting–rules committee meeting–I thought that we had discussed we would do this potentially as, like, a sessional order or a motion, just to see how it goes. This has been now put in here.
Clerk: We could still do that. If that's the will of the committee, we could still do that. We were under the impression that there was the intention to try this here, but we could absolutely do that with–for this one and the other one. And if that's the case, then the committee can just not agree to this and we can carry it forward in another fashion.
MLA Fontaine: I want to hear Derek first.
Mr. Johnson: What is the definition–and it's not in here, but it's in our notes–but introducing guests in the gallery, when we're switching to virtual, what is the definition of the gallery? Can I get up every single day and introduce my guests that are attending virtually in the virtual gallery? Or do they have to physically be present, and how do we get through that?
Like, I support this; don't get me wrong. But I just–I don't know if we're quite there yet, like–or, did I miss it in the rules?
Clerk: I don't think the rules speak to that. But it was definitely the intention that this is only physically people who are actually in the Legislative building, in the gallery, not people watching on screen.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): And I'll take some responsibility, I think, for this–having suggested this. But I think that the Government House Leader (MLA Fontaine) is correct. We had, I think, come to some sort of a sense that this probably should be tested out in a sessional agreement. And I might encourage, maybe through the Clerk's office, it could get some video footage of how this is done, as an example, in Saskatchewan, so members could kind of just see it, maybe familiarize themselves with it, the ability for members to, you know, acknowledge their guests, get the names pronounced correctly. No disrespect to anybody else who's pronouncing names, but it's sometimes hard if you've never met these individuals before.
* (18:30)
And they might, then, having seen it on video, if they've not visited other legislatures, you know, get a sense that it's not an uncommon practice, it just feels uncommon to us. But it might make sense to put as part of a future sessional order.
The Chairperson: No offence taken, Mr. Goertzen.
MLA Fontaine: So it's not that–and, again, we–these discussions that we had at the rules committee, it's not necessarily that I'm opposed to this. And you're right, it is new; we've never done this. It's always been the Speaker.
And my concern is that, similar to when we introduce bills, which, of course, we've had to make a rule change in respect of introduction to bills, to now spell it out that it's a minute, I believe. Right. Yes.
So–but similar to that, right, because what ended up happening is folks–and I was guilty of it as well–you know, we're supposed to introduce our bills within 30 seconds, it's kind of been pushed to a minute. So the only thing that I'm worried about is that when we introduce our bills, like, I don't know yet. Like, what is that going to look like? Are people going to take liberties?
And I know that we've marked in there, we've said 30 seconds, but still, right, I think that there's the potential for it to get pushed and pushed. So I'm only asking, and this was the concern that I had at our last meeting, is just to try this first before we put it into the rules.
Clerk: So I appreciate all of this feedback, and I'll apologize to the committee. This was a misunderstanding that we had. We thought that we–the will was to proceed with this. But it's easily solved.
What I would suggest, what I would–the committee can just not pass this item and also item 20, which is coming up in a moment, and then we will take those and put them into a package of other–there's a few other items, including the introduction of bills change that you were talking–that the minister was talking about, that was designed to be in that other package that we're going to consider next month. We'll be working out what will go in there, and then we can produce a sessional order which we could put in place for the next session starting in November.
And then we can try out a number of things there. They will lapse at the end of that session, so if there's no agreement to keep going with them, we don't have to keep going with them. And if we get through that session and we like them, then we'll put them in the rules permanently.
So we can definitely do that. So the committee would need to vote against item 18 and 19, 20.
The Chairperson: Any further comments from committee members?
Hearing none, shall proposal 18 regarding rule 24(1) pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
The Chairperson: Accordingly, proposal 18 regarding rule 24(1) is not passed.
Proposal 19 regarding rule 24(7)–[interjection] 27(4): Names in Hansard, ministerial statements, including names in Hansard transcript.
Clerk: This provision allows members to request that the names of guests be included in Hansard during a ministerial statement or response. This aligns with the rules governing the same process for members' statements. Members will likewise need to state during their statement, not afterwards, that they want–then–and they don't need to ask for leave, they just need to say, and I'd like to include the names of my guests in Hansard. Same process as we have for members' statements, it's just updating it for ministerial statements.
As soon as we adopted the rule for members' statements, it became confusing because everyone thought it applied to ministerial statements. We didn't make that happen then, but this will bring them all into alliance. It's the same process for everything. And I would encourage members to do it during their statement.
The Chairperson: Do committee members have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 19 regarding rule 27(4)–pass.
Proposal 20 regarding rules 29: Introduction of guests, part 2.
Clerk: So this would be the other one you'd want to vote down because this is the other part of that provision. We'll carry that all forward into the other process that we talked about.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, regarding proposal 20, regarding rule 29, shall that pass?
An Honourable Member: No.
The Chairperson: Accordingly, proposal 20 regarding rule 29 does not pass.
Proposal 21 regarding rule 40: Order in addressing the Chair.
Deputy Clerk: Traditionally, members in the Chamber would rise in their place to be recognized to speak and participate in debate, and the rules reflected that wording.
Members participating virtually do not need to stand at all during any part of proceedings, and this revised wording accounts for this change.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 21 regarding rule 40–pass.
Proposal 22 regarding rule 44: Precedence when two members rise to speak.
Deputy Clerk: This is a very old rule that has existed since 1877. This has not been our practice since the introduction of the speaking rotation, and so the rule should be repealed, as much as it breaks my clerky heart to see something that old be removed from the rule book.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Mr. Johnson: If Grant and I rose to do a matter of privilege at–and one was before the other–or, I should say somebody in the opposite–Cindy and I rose to do a matter of privilege, how is that deduced?
Clerk: Whoever catches the Speaker's eye first, which is an ancient parliamentary tradition, as well.
The Chairperson: Just a reminder, please don't use people's first names.
Other comments?
Mr. Grant Jackson (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Just a question, Honourable Chair. I'm new here and I understand that speaking rotations have been a long-standing practice, but it does require agreement between the government and the opposition side.
If a session is scheduled and if–what happens if the House leaders on both sides can't agree to a speaking rotation?
Deputy Clerk: There are already provisions in the rules that allow the Speaker to be the decider on that. So if the House leaders can't come to an agreement and we're about to go into session, the Speaker will determine the speaking rotation based on the proportional representation in the House.
MLA Fontaine: Just to share with the committee that I've been the, well, a House leader on that side and now on this side since September of 2017. We've actually never had an issue with a rotation, really, and the Clerk can attest to this. The only discussions that we've kind of been going back and forth has always been about the composition of question period, so the questions themselves. But in the rotations, there's never been an issue.
Clerk: I would just add one thing, just for a historical reference. It's actually a relatively recent provision to have speaking rotations like that. We have them quite formally now, but they started around when the current Government House Leader (MLA Fontaine) became the Opposition House Leader. I think it was '16 or '17; it was after that general election.
Prior to that, it wasn't so much of an issue. And one of the reasons for it was we ended up having quite a few independents in that Legislature, and that really complicated the provision of things.
So, until then, it was much more informal, but now it's very much formalized and serves a great purpose.
The Chairperson: Is the Chair allowed to ask a question?
So with removing this, then, when the Speaker decides who's going to speak because people haven't followed the rotation, somebody's not there, somebody else stands up instead of the ones that are in the agreed-upon rotation, then everybody starts to set their hair on fire because I've recognized somebody different or a member is busy on their device and not rising to speak, and I decide to recognize the next speaker, does this preclude that from happening, or does the Speaker still have the power to do Speaker things?
Clerk: The Speaker definitely still has the power to override this. We have–the rotations that we develop now cover almost every kind of debate that we can deal with. Not every, but in those, it remains Speaker's discretion, as I was alluding to before. And you definitely still have that power.
* (18:40)
And you also, you know, if there's a rotation in the circumstance kind of what you described there, it's the government's side and the person who was supposed to speak wasn't paying attention and missed it, then they lose that spot and then you go over to the opposition. It'll come back to the government the next time, but that's how it will generally work.
And, as you know, sometimes government will cede that spot; they decided they're not interested in speaking to something any more, and then it just goes between the opposition.
The Chairperson: Any other comments?
Shall proposal 22 regarding rule–oh–Mr. Abbott.
Deputy Clerk: Sorry. I was trying to find the rule reference. Rule 45(4) states that when a member speaks in debate, Speaker must not recognize another member from the same party to speak until an opportunity has been provided for a member from another party who is in their place ready to speak.
The Chairperson: All right. So, regarding–proposal 22, regarding rule 44–pass.
Proposal 23 regarding rule 45(4).
Clerk: This provisions adds wording to remove the requirement for a member to be standing in their place to be recognized in the event they're participating virtually, much like other provisions.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, shall proposal 23 regarding rule forty-four–45(4) pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
The Chairperson: Accordingly, proposal 23 regarding rule 45(4) is passed.
Proposal 24 regarding rule 52: Closure of debate.
Deputy Clerk: Honourable Speaker, this provision changes wording to remove the requirement for a minister to be standing in their place to be recognized when participating virtually. And for the information of the committee members, in a future rules process, there will be a proposal to rewrite rule 52 in plain language and make it more accessible.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 24 regarding rule 52–pass.
Proposal 25 regarding rule 53(1): Procedure on point of order.
Deputy Clerk: If a member rises on a point of order, any member who is speaking in debate at that time, whether participating virtually or in person in the Chamber, should cede the floor.
This provision provides–adds wording to account for a member participating virtually at the time a member rises on a point of order.
The Chairperson: Do committee members have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 25 regarding rule 53(1)–pass.
Proposal 26 regarding rule 55(1): Conduct during putting of question.
Clerk: This allows for virtual–or, it enables virtual participation in reference to this rule. But more than that, we updated the wording of this rule, so if you look at the current wording of the rule, it says: When the Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House or make any noise or disturbance.
So, clearly, that's not what happens. The Speaker could be saying, is the House ready for the question. The question before the House is second reading of Bill X, and a member might be walking across the Chamber or coming in or out. This hasn't been enforced in probably my lifetime.
So we wanted to update the wording, and the intent of it is just for the House to be quiet so that they can hear the question that's being put, because that–everything that happens in the House is important, but it's particularly important to know what you're voting on.
So we changed the wording so that the Speaker should be heard in silence, and again, the intent is we just want to be able to hear what question is being put.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments? And certainly, the Speaker and the clerks had many discussions about exactly what being heard in silence means, and I guess–yes–once again, it's going to be up to the Speaker to sometimes make that decision.
Proposal 26 regarding rule 55(1)–pass.
Proposal 27 regarding rule 57(1): Maintenance of order.
Deputy Clerk: This is a good example of how we would go about plain languaging a rule. So this updates wording to reflect current practices and to make the rule more intelligible and accessible.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 27 regarding rule 57(1)–pass.
Proposal 28 regarding rule 70(1): Motion moved and seconded.
Deputy Clerk: This provision updates wording to the rule to reflect the very long-standing practice that members must be in their seat or at their seat when moving or being the seconder to a motion.
The Chairperson: Do members have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 28 regarding rule 70(1)–pass.
Proposal 29 regarding rule 76(2): Rules observed in a Committee of the Whole.
Clerk: As members are aware and we've discussed, when someone is in the Chamber and it's the House in session, members are required to stand. When we're in the Chamber and the mace is off the table and we're in Committee of the Whole or Committee of Supply, you don't have to stand. You can stay in your place to speak. And that's what 76(2a) says: Members are not required to rise in their place to speak.
So this is just adding the provision that members participating in the Chamber are not required to rise in their place to speak because, as previously mentioned, virtual members don't rise on any occasion. So it's just an update on that regard.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 29 regarding rule 76(2)–pass.
Proposal 30 regarding rule 78(10): Formal vote in committees.
Clerk: So, for clarity, during the COVID‑19 pandemic we changed the practice for recorded votes in the Committee of Supply or the Committee of the Whole to make them the same as recorded votes in the House. And this provision reflects that change and updates the outdated terminology, removing formal vote and count-out vote. The next two provisions also do that.
And just for clarity and for the record, the difference in process was as follows: in a House vote, as we're all familiar with, members all stand and a page says the name of every member, for and against. The Clerk then repeats that name and that's how we record it.
Previous to the COVID‑19 pandemic and participating virtually, in a Committee of Supply vote–so, again, that's when all three sections of Supply come together in the Chamber section but it's the Committee, not the House–rather than going by name, we would just count them by number. So the Chairperson would say all those in favour please rise, and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk would literally go one, two, three, four, five, six. Which is why it was called count-out vote.
That didn't work when you had half of the members on screen, so we had to–we made the decision to adapt the House process to be the same for the Committee as it is for the House. This is codifying that in the rules and the next two ones speak to it, as well.
The Chairperson: Do the committee members have any comments?
Seeing none–Mr. Johnson, sorry.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, it says two members request a recorded vote. I thought it was four: a member, plus three.
Clerk: In the House, it's four members. In the Committee of Supply, it's two members and in the Standing Committee, it's one member.
The Chairperson: Any other comments?
Proposal 30 regarding rule 78(10)–pass.
Proposal 31 regarding rule 78(11): All sections of the Committee of Supply to meet.
Clerk: So this is updating wording to reflect actual practice. As I mentioned before, when there's a Committee of Supply vote, all three sections come together in the Chamber.
* (18:50)
Apparently, in the distant mists of time, before my time here, which was a long time ago, they tried to do a Committee of Supply vote in one of the committee rooms–I think it was this room. So, imagine 57 members somehow around this table trying to do a vote.
Because the previous wording of the rule allowed for it to be in or outside of the Chamber. So this is to reflect the fact that we are never going to do a Committee of Supply vote in a committee room; it's–always has to be in the Chamber.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 31 regarding rule 78(11)–pass.
Proposal 32 regarding rule 78(12): Count-out vote.
Clerk: So this is another one of these provisions and I think there's one more. This provision repeals the definition of a count-out vote because as I just explained, we don't do that anymore.
The Chairperson: Any comments from the committee members?
Seeing none, proposal 32 regarding rule 78(12)–pass.
Proposal 33 regarding rule 78(13): Committee of Supply sitting on Fridays.
Clerk: So this is again just updating wording to remove current terminology that doesn't make sense anymore, like formal vote, so we changed that to division, which is another parliamentary term for recorded vote, of course. And it's not changing anything else than that; just updating that wording.
The Chairperson: Members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 33 regarding rule 78(13)–pass.
Proposal 34 regarding rule 85(2): Committee membership lists.
Deputy Clerk: Some proposals that come further in this package will permanently allow members of the public to participate in committee seatings virtually. This creates a significant amount of extra work for the committee clerks, so this provision is adding the requirement for the whips to provide committee membership lists to the committee clerks at least one hour prior to the start time of the standing committee.
This allows time for the committee clerks to ensure that all documents are updated in time to be shared with the virtual members and also any virtual members of the public who are going to be participating in proceedings that evening.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Seeing none, proposal 34 regarding rule 85(2)–pass.
Proposal 35 regarding rule 89(1): Reports, how made.
Deputy Clerk: Before I discuss–explain proposal 35, for clarity, the previous proposal still allows for substitutions to be made during standing committee meetings. We ask for the initial list an hour before, but if there are any required changes, that's still going to be allowed.
Proposal 35, it–this is dealing with the committee report being presented to the House. This provision removes the term standing in their place to account for virtual members who might be presenting the committee reports and adds the long-standing practice of allowing the vice-chairperson or, if required, another member of the committee regardless of which caucus they're from, to present a committee report if the chairperson is not available.
This also removes the reference of the Clerk being at the table in the unlikely event that the Clerk is also participating virtually.
The Chairperson: Do the members of the committee have any comments? Hearing none, shall proposal 34 regarding rule 89(1) pass? [interjection] Proposal 35. Apparently, I can't read.
Proposal 35 regarding rule 89(1)–pass.
Proposal 36 regarding rule 92(2): Hearing presentations on bills.
Deputy Clerk: So, this amendment is what will allow members of the public to participate in committees virtually. An important inclusion here is this provision will limit the number of out-of-province virtual presenters to two while allowing exceptions to that limit as long as they are either by the agreement of the House leaders or by leave of the committee.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have comments?
Seeing none, proposal 36 regarding rule 92(2)–pass.
Proposal 37 regarding rule 92(2): Hearing presentations on bills.
Deputy Clerk: During the 2020 rule–2022 rule change process, it–a rotation for members asking questions to public presenters was established.
However, there was an unintended consequence of how that rule was worded. The change inadvertently created a circumstance where only the bill sponsor can ask a question to a presenter on behalf of their caucus. This was not the intent of the rule.
This provision opens this up to allow anyone from the bill sponsor's caucus to ask a question as part of that rotation, something that has already been happening in a number of committees by leave this session.
The Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any comments?
Mr. Johnson: I thought we were amending the 30 seconds to 45 or something, as well; 30 seconds is hardly enough time. And we tried to change that by leave. Is–like, if House leaders agree, could we propose an amendment to this, or?
Deputy Clerk: From the previous meeting we had, I don't remember there being a consensus on this, but this could–the rule could certainly be amended to account for 45 seconds if the committee is in agreement.
The Chairperson: Does the committee wish to make an amendment?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, I just feel like by the time you thank somebody for coming in, your time is up, and I don't know. I've run out of time many, many times, but maybe we'll get an opinion from around the Chamber here tonight, or floor, table.
MLA Fontaine: Yes, I mean, I do remember that this came up because I know the rules changed as a consequence of, actually, one of your former members that took up a significant amount of time when it was time to ask questions, and I think that was the genesis for this.
I do agree with Derek, and in some of our preliminary conversations that we've had here, 30 seconds is not enough time. Because every–in your presentations, inevitably, anybody that gets up to speak from our–either side of the standing committee usually will thank the individuals. You always start with thanking the individuals and, you know, what they learnt or whatever. Then you never get on to the question.
So, I agree, 45 seconds is probably still tight, but it's a little bit better than 30 seconds.
Mr. Johnson: I–so, move an amendment to change it from 30 seconds to 45 seconds.
The Chairperson: Is the committee in agreement with that proposal?
Clerk: So the committee can definitely make this change, but just for clarity's–because this isn't something that happens commonly when we get to the rules package here. But–so that would need to be changed, and the committee would then need to agree to adopt this one with the change and to specify the change would be 92(2)(c) would–30 seconds would be changed to 45 seconds. That's specifically what would be changed. And so, the committee would need to adopt this proposal as amended.
Mr. Johnson: Is it 92(3)(c)?
Clerk: Thank you. Sorry about that. I was looking at the middle column, not the right-hand column. My mistake. It is 92(3). You're right, because things were renumbered. So 92(3)(c), 30 seconds would be changed to 45 seconds.
The Chairperson: Does the committee agree to adopt the proposed change from 30 seconds to 45 seconds? [Agreed]
* (19:00)
Therefore, regarding proposal 37, regarding (90)–rule 92(2)–92(3) as amended–pass.
Proposal 38 regarding rule 93: Payment of per diem allowance and expenses to witnesses.
Clerk: I will admit to a great deal of satisfaction at being able to remove this rule. It's one of these rules that has not been used potentially in my lifetime; certainly, not in my tenure, and it allows–it's a complicated set of provisions that allow us to pay for witnesses to come to a committee. We've never done that.
Moreover, now that virtual–now that presenters can appear virtually, we have no need to do that. So all of these rules can be deleted with no effect on–no effect, practically, on the rules. It's no longer required.
The Chairperson: Any comments from the committee members?
Hearing none, therefore, shall–proposal 38 regarding rules 93 to 95 be adopted?
Accordingly, proposal 33–[interjection]–proposal 38 regarding rules 93 to 95–pass.
Proposal 39 regarding appendix D: Budget date procedure.
Clerk: This is another simple one. The current rule says that in part of the budget day procedure, when the Speaker reads the message, all members stand. We amended that to say that all members in the Chamber stand. Simple as that.
The Chairperson: Any members of the committee have any comments?
Hearing none, proposal 39 regarding Appendix D–pass.
Mr. Johnson: I think Mr. Goertzen would like to be recognized.
Mr. Goertzen: Thanks to our Opposition House Leader. I just want to put a couple words on record if I could because I know, I think we're at the end now.
I want to add some of my comments and thanks to the Clerk's office, to all those who are involved in this. I do want to recognize the two House leaders and the Liberal leader as well, because it really does take the leadership of those who are in leadership positions in their caucuses to make this happen and to realize that there's an importance to changing of the rules.
And I feel really good about the fact that there is, you know, I think a culture of–a continuation of reviewing the rules, which maybe didn't always exist 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. So that's really, really encouraging to see. I know that staff are often involved in both caucuses; Tara Fawcett, our extraordinary researcher and House director on our side, and I don't know all the government folks but I'm sure that there are some there, as well.
This will be my last appearance at a House Rules Committee after many years. I'm not going anywhere; generally, even though the House–Government House Leader (MLA Fontaine) might be looking to bake me some farewell cookies, and I would accept those anyway, but I think it is time now for others to be more involved in this and there are some incredible people, now, who are doing this work and I think who will continue on with a culture of co‑operation, knowing that the rules benefit all of us.
So I really just wanted to say thank you to all of those who've been involved in this process over the years, and to commend the two Government House Leaders and the Liberal leader for the spirit of co‑operation that brought this to this point, and I'm sure that it'll continue.
And probably my last Rules Committee; it's ironic that I'm virtual, because I could never have imagined 15 or 20 years ago being virtual from my home in Steinbach and what that–how that could even happen in the Legislature. And that's truly a testament to all those who've been involved in changes, not just through COVID, but before that and beyond that.
So thanks very much for the opportunity to say a few words, and I will turn it back so this committee can be adjourned and everybody else can head home like I am already.
The Chairperson: Thank you for your words, Mr. Goertzen.
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 beginning of the Second Session of the 43rd Legislature?
Mr. Johnson: Question: Don't our virtual rules expire June 3rd? So is the start of the session the Throne Speech, or this fall?
Clerk: You are correct. The Sessional Order is stated to expire on Monday, but we had discussed about extending that. So we'll have those provisions be in effect until these rules take effect so that we won't have a gap. It'll also–it'll allow for the fall sittings of the House, but it'll also allow for committee meetings that might need to happen over the summer.
So we'll take care of that in the House on Monday.
The Chairperson: Does–okay, so 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 beginning of the Second Session of the 43rd Legislature? [Agreed]
And does the committee agree that these amendments to the rules are permanent? [Agreed]
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 make minor corrections to the French version of 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?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: I missed that, sorry.
The Chairperson: 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 for future reference, the document entitled Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Rule Change Proposals–May 2024–Virtual Rules and Other Minor Amendments be appended at the end of the Hansard 'transcipt' 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 of the committee.
The hour being 7:08, what is the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members: Rise.
The Chairperson: Committee rise.
COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 7:08 p.m.
