Page 6155 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, may I explain something? I gave instructions for the drawing of this Bill on 12 September 1991. I received the Bill about seven minutes ago, and one of the explanations for that - - -
Mr Connolly: For the Bill! It was for a Bill!
Mr Collaery: I received this amendment which would otherwise have been a Bill. Members are well aware of the pressures in this chamber and particularly the pressures on Parliamentary Counsel. I am very grateful that, now that some of the pressure is off the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, with the wind-down, they have been able to complete the drawing of it. I believe that this drawing was completed only in the last hour or two, and I am grateful that I am able to introduce it to the chamber. It is a worthwhile, small amendment that will aid the legal profession and, more importantly, aid defendants.
I can understand Mr Moore's reaction, and we live with that, at the moment. But I really ask members to consider whether we could not do this good little thing without further delaying the house. It would take just a few minutes to vote on this amendment. You can knock it out if you like. But I want to be able to say that I gave instructions in September, Mr Speaker, and I have taken all steps.
Mr Connolly: Why did you not talk to us in September and raise the issue then? We might have been able to agree with it.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, any knowledgeable attorney would be aware of this situation in the city. I do not want to go further than that. Mr Connolly has been quite insulting about the issue. But it is well known in the profession how difficult it is when you have a client who cannot afford the transcript, at $8.50 a page. Some deserving clients, particularly in domestic violence cases, should be able to get a transcript at the Attorney's direction, which is all the amendment seeks. After all, it is already printed. It is only a matter of photocopying it again or producing another copy. There is not an end cost, and this does not affect public moneys, on my advice.
MR SPEAKER: Members, looking through this quickly, I have troubles relating the amendment to the actual thrust of the Bill, other than as the amendment would affect most Bills that would come before us. I am also having trouble with the possibility of standing orders 200 and 201 being involved, because it would appear to me that there would be a cost incurred on the Government. Under that proposal, unless members wish to postpone debate, I would rule that the amendment is inadmissible under standing orders 181, 200 and 201.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .