Manitoba Committee Hansard — 10 March 2010 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 3, 39th Legislature, 4th Session)

39-4-la3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. LXII No. 3 – 6 p.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2010 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BLAIKIE, Bill, Hon. Elmwood N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P.

MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas N.D.P. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P. Vacant Concordia

15 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Wednesday, March 10, 2010 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Blaikie, Hon. Ms. Howard, Hon. Messrs. Selinger, Struthers, Swan Ms. Brick, Messrs. Derkach, Eichler, Goertzen, McFadyen, Reid APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mr.

Richard Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Manitoba MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2003, including the conduct of the 38th Provincial General Election, June 3, 2003 Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2004, including the conduct of the Minto and Turtle Mountain by-elections, June 22 and June 29, 2004 Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2005, including the conduct of the Fort Whyte by-election, December 13, 2005 Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2006 Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2007, including the conduct of the 39th Provincial General Election, May 22, 2007 * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr.

Rick Yarish): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Your first item of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there nominations for this position? Mr. Swan had his hand up first. Hon. Andrew Swan (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, I nominate Mr. Reid. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Reid has been nominated. Are there other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Reid, will you please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you to members of the committee. I'm honoured to be your Chair. Our next item of business is election of a Vice- Chairperson.

Are there any nominations? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I would nominate Ms. Brick. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Seeing no further nominations, Ms. Brick has been nominated as Vice- Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the following annual reports of Elections Manitoba: for the year ending December 31s t, 2003, including the conduct of the 38th Provincial General Election, June 3rd, 2003; for the year ending December 31st, 2004, including the conduct of the Minto and Turtle Mountain by-elections, June 22nd and June 29th, 2004; for the year ending December 31st, 2005, including the conduct of the Fort Whyte by-election, December 13th, 2005; for the year ending December 31st, 2006; and for the year ending December 31st, 2007, including the conduct of the 39th Provincial General Election, May 22nd, 2007.

Before we get started, are there any suggestions from committee members on how long you wish to sit this evening? Mr. Swan: I believe, Mr. Chair, it'd be fair to sit until 10 o'clock or before that, if the business of the committee is finished. Mr. Chairperson: It's been recommended to the committee that we sit until 10 o'clock or until the business of this committee is finished, if it happens to be a prior hour. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Are there any suggestions from committee members on–in which order you wish to consider the reports that I have previously mentioned? Mr. Swan: It's become that the tradition that we consider the reports globally and, hopefully, we do that with a view to passing one or more reports at the end of the evening. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I agree with the global portion of the statement by the minister, yes. We'll review with them globally. Mr.

Chairperson: Is it agreed by committee members that we review the reports in a global fashion? [Agreed] Does the honourable First Minister wish to make an opening statement, and would you please introduce your officials in attendance here this evening–if you know them. Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Well, I believe they're officials that are officers of the Legislature, not my officials. I'd like to correct the record on that.

But, as I understand it, we have our Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Balasko; and we also have Shipra Verma, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer; and Mary Skanderbeg, the manager of corporate operations, and, as you know, Mr. Chairperson, these folks are officers of the Legislature and report to the Legislature. So I think we should be clear about that. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Do you have an opening statement? Mr. Selinger: Yes, I do. Thank you. I thought I'd take a little time in an opening statement to just to review some of what's been accomplished. As this is my first meeting in this role, it's also a useful

summary for myself. And, first of all, I'd like to extend my thanks to Richard Balasko, who has served our Province since 1990, and throughout this time he has overseen five elections and, as he moves into retirement on the next phase of his life, we wish him all the best for all the work he's done on behalf of Manitobans, who have a democracy that functions effectively and in the best interests of the citizens of the province of Manitoba. * (18:10) As Manitoba's Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Balasko's been entrusted with the crucial yet often thankless job of ensuring that electoral process is free and fair.

That elections should be free and fair is a right for which people fight and die each day in countries across the globe. Though we in this room will also often argue over the details of our electoral process and, make no mistake, the details are important. What we cannot dispute is that we are fortunate and have been elected and entrusted by the people of Manitoba to discuss these issues on their behalf. We are also fortunate that we can meet, as we are today, and discuss ways in which our electoral process can be made to function better.

It is, after all, through this process of discussion and debate, this coming together of ideas and perspectives that we will make the voices of our constituents stronger. Since coming into office, our government has taken a number of steps to modernize and enhance the democratic process in Manitoba. These efforts have been built on the principles of fairness, enhancing transparency, accountability and equality. First of all, access to voting. Once such way that we have worked to promote these principles is by introducing legislation that allows for greater access to voting.

We have made changes to The Elections Act and the elections financing act that require employers to give unpaid leave to empl oyees who are candidates, election officials or designated volunteers working for political parties. We have also extended absentee voting to students and public employees who are outside the province, and we have provided dedicated polls within large apartment blocks so residents don't have to leave to vote. In addition, polls now open an hour earlier, at 7 a.m. on election day to allow voters more time to vote on the way to work.

Restrictions surrounding advanced polling have also been removed so that anyone can vote in advance for any reason, and we have increased the number of locations of advanced polls and the days they can be open. Also, we have legislated the creation of super polls in malls, and by super polls I don't mean super politicians, I mean polls where people can go and vote. So, people can vote in advance in convenient locations and have improved access to voting locations in rural and northern areas. With this improved access, residents in a community won't travel more than 30 kilometres to vote in advance.

These changes to advanced voting were well received. In the '07 election, more than 42,000 voters cast ballots at the advanced polls, compared with

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 18,762 in 2003, in more than doubling. Advanced voting accounted for 12 percent of votes cast, compared with 5 percent in '03 and the '99 elections. We believe that the more accessible voting is, the more the result at the end of the election day will reflect the will of the people of our province. With respect to greater transparency, we believe that this is important to the political process and the political parties that participate in it.

We now require elected officials to disclose additional salaries they receive from a party; require caucuses to file an annual financial report with respect to special allowances received; require lobbyists to register and disclose who they are lobbying and the techniques they are using; and have made it law that any loans received by a candidate be filed with the CEO of Elections Manitoba immediately, while also restricting loans from friends and family to $3,000.

In order to further improve transparency, we have established an independent Commissioner of Elections to receive an d prosecute complaints regarding breaches of elections legislation. Through the establishment of compliance agreements and the power to seek injunctions during an election, the Commissioner of Elections has been provided with greater options to deal with infractions of the act. These measures enable the commissioner to deal with minor infractions in a more effective way.

The addition of compliance agreements and injunctions parallel federal provisions that resulted from a recommendation by a royal commission. Both Saskatchewan and Nova Scotian election officers have recommended the institution of compliance agreements in recent reports. Compliance agreements caution letters and all court proceedings are to be made public. Additionally, the commissioner has been given the discretion to comment on investigations where she or he believes it is in the public interest.

With respect to fairness in elections, it's important that there be a level playing field today as much as it has ever been. We have banned union and corporate donations and post a 3,000 annual limit on individual donations. We have also introduced legislation requiring an MLA who crosses the floor, in quotes, to sit as an independent, rather than joining another caucus, unless a by-election is called. To avoid conflict, municipal councillors must now resign on nomination when they are seeking another office.

A set election date every four years on the first Tuesday in October now removes the advantage held by the government of the day to call the election when they please, while also allowing Elections Manitoba time for better planning and the creation of a stronger voters list. With a set election date, we have also extended the ban on government advertising to 90 days pr e-election and extended a similar ban to mailings and advertising by MLAs and caucuses.

Taken together, these changes help to ensure our elections are independent, fair, and ensure Manitobans have access to a modern and transparent democratic process. Manitobans have a right to have their voices heard and they have a right to know that their government is accountable to them, the people, not the hidden special interests. And with those comments, I thank you for the opportunity to give my opening remarks. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable First Minister for the opening statement. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'm pleased just to make a brief statement tonight in advance of some further discussions. I want to thank the First Minister for his comments and certainly acknowledge that–I certainly indicate that we acknowledg e that, since 1990, there have been positive developments and steps undertaken in many respects in terms of the conduct of elections in Manitoba. Mr.

Balasko and his staff have been instrumental in modernizing and bringing forward many of those developments and, I think, through all-party discussion, where all of the parties represented in the Legislature have come together and had fruitful discussions, I believe that we have had quite significant and important and progressive changes made to our election laws, and we hope that that spirit of all-party co-opera tion, as we go forward, will continue. And we certainly intend to advance our views and work with other parties to continue the process of improving elections in Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, it's been almost a year since the last meeting of this committee. At that time, and in other forums, including the Legislature and public, we had the opportunity to deal with information that had come forward fairly recently with respect to an election scheme run by the NDP, leading up to, and including 1999, involving the falsification of election

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 returns in order to trigger taxpayer-funded rebates to which the party was not entitled. Now, we've certainly raised significant questions about the handling of those discoveries by Elections Manitoba upon their discovery by Mr. Asselstine, the forensic accountant, and I think it's important for us to put on the record today that we continue to be dissatisfied with where things stand today in terms of the responses we've received on that issue. Now, since that last meeting, Mr.

Chairman, some other information has come to our attention that we believe is relevant to the discussion of the independence of Elections Manitoba and relevant to the way that the NDP conducts its financial affairs here in the province of Manitoba.

I will note, before we get into the detail of that– of those new concerns–that since the last meeting of this committee, there have been calls for public inquiries by the Provincial Council of Women, several media outlets and other credible commentators in the province of Manitoba who have an interest in fair elections here in Manitoba, many of whom are not partisan and are in no way associated with either o pposition party, and that includes comments made by, as I said, the Provincial Council of Women and others.

In addition to that, the current Minister of Public Safety has certainly voiced significant concerns about the way in which matters were handled with respect to his own issues going back to 1999 and the apparent discrepancy betwee n the approach taken to his matters and matters taken with respect to the governing party in that same time period. Mr.

Chairman, we have significant unanswered questions and significant concerns about the handling by Elections Manitoba of some of these issues and, in particular, the extent to which Elections Manitoba appears to have succumbed to pressure and interference– An Honourable Member: Point of order. Mr. McFadyen: –by representatives of the NDP. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Swan, on a point of order. Mr. Swan: Yes, I do have a point of order on the line that Mr.

McFadyen is beginning with and, frankly, I think it's a departure from the usual way things work in this Legislature, and under Beauchesne, sixth edition, page 96, citation 316, that, in and of itself, can give rise to a point of order. * (18:20) Where Mr. McFadyen is going, and I've been listening carefully to his statements, really is counter to our Manitoba Legislative tradition which, unfortunately, seems to be the way that the member and his party want to operate. Each member of this House should have respect for independent officers.

This is a Legislature where we do partisan things and we certainly take each other on politically but, frankly, independent officers are a different creature within this Legislature. They report directly to the Legislature, not to any particular party, and, unfortunately, statements that Mr. McFadyen and his party members have made in the Chamber, in committee, in public, really demonstrate that they don't share that respect that I think every honourable member of this Legislature should, and we've seen comments by Mr. McFadyen and his caucus members, by his party workers impugning the Chief Electoral Officer.

We've seen comments impugning the former Auditor General, the current Auditor General, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and, Mr. Chair, I think you need to straighten out the record and not allow that to continue. And I do have some examples of the way that Mr. McFadyen and some members of his party have decided to deal with this. There's been routine atta cks on the credibility of the Chief Electoral Officer , who, I would note, was appointed through an all-party committee process back in 1990, and, as the Premier (Mr. Selinger) has indicated, has served the people of Manitoba through five elections.

There's been repeated attacks in the Chamber, in scrums outside the Legislature, in the newspaper, and, in fact, Mr. McFadyen, unfor- tunately, publicly accused the Chief Electoral Officer of unfairly treating his party over others. He effectively accused the Chief Electoral Officer of lying when he stated his decision to prosecute are based on the advice of two independent lawyers, Mr. Green and Mr. Graham, w ho Mr. McFadyen and I both know, and, indeed, Mr.

McFadyen, unfor- tunately, called the Chief Electoral Officer's statements a, quote, total misrepresentation, end quote, and, quote, a neat trick, end quote. But we've seen other members. We've seen Mr. Pedersen, the MLA for Carman, just the other day, comments that Elections Manitoba is being controlled by the NDP, there's no doubt about that.

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 So members under his control and direction are continuing to impugn an independent member of the House. We're here for four hours tonight. We've agreed to a lengthy meeting to allow many questions of Mr. Balasko, many questions of the Premier (Mr.

Selinger) and others– [interjection] Well, I hear members opposite that don't want me to raise this point of order, but I'm actually raising this point of order because it's not the Manitoba way to attack independent officers of this Legislature, whether it be the Auditor General, whether it be the Chief Electoral Officer, whether it be the Ombudsman, and, I think, Mr. Chair, it's your opportunity to set us straight and allow us to get on to what I think will be a very good evening of questions and answers. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chair, I don't believe the member has a point of order.

In fact, I think that the member knows full well that he does not have a point of order. In fact, I found it interesting; it's almost as if he was prepped to make that statement in anticipation of an opening statement from the Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Hawranik). Mr. Chairperson, I would think that the government has to recognize that they might not like everything that they're hearing at the committee level.

And just because they don't like it doesn't necessarily mean that they have the right to prevent the comments being made, and, ultimately, for us to be able to ask the questions that are important, that we feel are important, and I hope and I trust that the minister will not be interrupting throughout the evening as whether it's in statements or questions, that we use this three and a half hours in a productive way. Thank you. Mr.

Goertzen: I know the minister had a prepared point of order and rolled through that with a script that he either wrote prior to the meeting or the script that he was given by one of his colleagues. But you need only look back, Mr. Chairperson, at the previous committee meeting. I know it was a year ago, longer than we would have hoped, but there was a number of questions that were put to Mr.

Balasko at that point, and, to his credit, he took those questions and whether he answered them to our full satisfaction or not, he did endeavour to, in his own way, provide an answer, and he didn't raise objections regarding those questions. I think he recognized that the role of an independent officer isn't to wrap oneself in some ironclad protection. I mean, we can all wonder what would happen if we gave that sort of protection to every independent officer, that you can never look at the conduct of their office, that they would be without scrutiny, without any sort of questioning.

I don't think that independent officers would want that. I never heard of an indepe ndent officer ask for that sort of protection nor do I think that they ever would, and nor has Mr. Balasko ever asked for that sort of protection. I think that we've acted in a respectful way at committees in the past. I think we'll continue to act in a respectful way, and just because you don't like the questions and just because it might impugn your party or might impugn you personally, sir, doesn't mean that it impugns the rules of this Legislature.

And I would ask that you stop trying to interrupt these proceedings and allow us to get on to the matters at hand. Mr. Chairperson: No further comments? The Chair thanks the honourable member for the point of order, and for all members for their comments with respect to that point of order. The tradition of this committee, for which I have been chair in other times, is to allow a fair amount of latitude for members that are making their opening comments and it's always been a practice that I have followed as the chairperson of the committees that I've chaired.

This Chairperson did not detect any unparliamentary language so far in the comments that were made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. McFadyen). The relevance seem to be in keeping with what was–the reports that are under consideration here today, and that, with respect to the point of order itself, I must remind honourable members that point of orders–this is for all members' advice–points of orders are not to be used for debate purposes. And also my advice, as Chairperson, is to make sure that this committee can function in a fairly harmonious way through the course of this evening.

I would ask for consideration of all members here to direct all of their comments through the Chair, please, so that we can ensure that this committee works in a way we intended it to be, and therefore, with respect to the comments that I've just made, I must rule that there is no point of order. And we'll now continue with the opening statement of the Leader of the Official Opposition. * * *

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Mr. McFadyen: Just to carry on, we do have great respect for the office. Obviously, there are times when there are decisions and actions taken that I think all Manitobans have an interest in questioning, and that's where we're going, all with the view toward ensuring the ongoing integrity of that important independent office for Manitobans. And in that vein, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify one point I made earlier. I said that the Provincial Council of Women had called for a public inquiry.

I should clarify that it was Elizabeth Fleming, in her personal capacity, that had made that call, and I want that just clarified for the record. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, since the last meeting, new additional information has come to our attention respecting communications from Mr. Asselstine, who was the forensic auditor that was hired by Elections Manitoba prior to 1999, and who continued to be an auditor for Elections Manitoba until such time as he was–his position there was terminated following a request by the NDP provincial secretary.

And that information gives rise to some new and troubling concerns that we have about the financial practices of the NDP, in connection with election finances, and the way those practices were handled wh en discovered by Mr. Asselstine and brought to the attention of Elections Manitoba and the Chief Electoral Officer. We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the Chief Electoral Officer here in Manitoba, and in any jurisdiction, is in a job which, by nature, puts that individual into difficult and pressure-filled situations.

We have a concern that there appears to have been a response to pressure applied by the NDP, that, in our view, was inappropriate in terms of the response to the information that was being brought to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer by the forensic auditor.

Now, w ith the benefit of some further analysis of donation patterns and the issuance of tax credits, we have some significant additional concerns about the NDP's financial practices and the way those matters are dealt with here in Manitoba. * (18:30) Now, with all of those comments, I again want to thank members–again thank the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff, and we'll look forward to having an opportunity to examine some of these very significant issues which go to a fundamentally important issue, and that is the independence of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and Elections Manitoba and the fairness of elections here in our province.

As we begin 2010 and look to an election campaign in 2011, we believe that there's growing urgency to clear the air and resolve the various issues that have been brought forward, and so with that, I want to thank you for the opportunity for the statement and turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for the opening statement. Does the Chief Electoral Officer wish to make an opening statement? Mr. Richard Balasko (Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Manitoba): Mr.

Chairperson, thank you, and thank you members for the opportunity to appear this evening with staff from my office to discuss our previously tabled reports. With the experience of eight general elections, five of them as Chief Electoral Officer, I want to take this opportunity tonight to make some comments related to the critical issue of voter turnout and what I think can be done to respond to the issue. I think it's of a concern to all at the table.

As well, I want to re fer to a few outstanding recommendations that have not been addressed from previous annual reports which are before you today, and, of course, at that point I'll be pleased to take any questions and do my best to reply to the questions that I receive. Many jurisdictions in Canada and around the world are grappling with this issue of declining voter turnout, and much of the response to voter turnout– the decline in voter turnout has been centered on the enactment of progressive legislation that provides even greater access for the voters and programs to promote voter engagement.

In Manitoba, over the past decade plus, there have been a number of very important legislative changes to make voting more accessible–a number of which have just been referred to in the Premier' s opening statement. It's not an exaggeration at all to say that many jurisdictions across Canada look to Manitoba's Elections Act as innovative and expansive in terms of voter access. There are many examples of this.

I won't repeat those that have been identified, but I will add a couple: The extension of advanced voting now to eight days, including two Saturdays and a Sunday; absentee voting both inside and outside of Manitoba; a reduction in the size of rural voting areas from 350 to 250, which results in more rural voting places and less distance to travel; that homebound voting has

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 been extended to those who have any disability, mental or physical, that disables them from leaving their home and has been extended to the caregivers; and, very important, I will also mention the vote- anywhere opportunity that is quite uniquely applied in Manitoba. So these are all examples of legislative changes that have made voting much more accessible, and such examples have had some success in the past.

Some of them are yet to be tested on a full basis in the next general election, but even on the vote-anywhere opportunities from the last election, voter turnout went up marginally to 57 percent of registered voters, compared to 54 percent in 2003. Now, of course, there's a lot and varied reasons to explain why people choose to vote or not to vote, but I've no doubt that such changes have had an impact. In fact, from 2003 to 2007, the percentage of non-voters who cite administrative barriers as a reason for not voting has declined from 11 percent to 9 percent of voters.

In addition, like many electoral agencies around the country, Elections Canada now has a clear mandate to promote voting and to educate citizens on the importance of democratic engagement. As part of the mandate, for example, we have distributed to you a package called Your Power to Choose , which is an educational kit–I hope you've received it and found it to be of interest–which is directly tied to the curriculum in grade 6, 9 and 11 throughout the province and it's distributed in all those grades throughout the province. The promotional message will only get stronger as we go on in time.

And yet, with all these innovations that bring voter access to sort of state of the art, up to this point, voter turnout in the last two general elections has rested below 60 percent, and in the recent Concordia by-election, the turnout was 31 percent, low even by by-election standards and part of a steady decline in voter turnout in the province in by-elections since 2000.

So, while there are likely still some legislative and administrative actions, like expanding the use of advanced voting locations and continuing to outreach that can be expected to make a positive impact, these, in my view, will never be enough. The issue of low-voter turnout, I would argue, is societal in nature and it requires a broad-based community effort to revitalize. We know from research that the strong majority of both voters and more than two-thirds of non-voters value very dearly the opportunity to vote. It's on their list of priorities but just not at the top of their list that day.

But, just like charitable giving, voting is a core value among Manitobans. Going forward, I want to take this opportunity to suggest that voter engagement might receive some important momentum from a summit of sorts bringing together all aspects of civil society with a common goal to promote democratic engagement.

Election agencies and political entities have an important role to play, but so, too, does the media, academia, community groups and others, and I want to leave you with the thought that it would be something really quite special if Manitoba once again took the lead and found a way to provide a forum to promote voter engagement that brought together civil society. When I last appeared before you to consider our reports, I provided also to you information about our continued proactive approach to assist political participants to comply with, in particular, campaign finance legislation.

I review ed a series of different information packages, incl uding guides, checklists, as well as campaign information sessions, which are sewn together in a program, including the introduction of a new post-election day information session to assist official agents and chief financial officers to actually–to complete the election returns.

In the recent Concordia by-election, Elections Manitoba has made available to all campaigns for the first time a prototype electronic record-keeping disc so that all incumbent expenses may be recorded throughout the campaign and transferred easily to the electronic filing disc, and a number of campaigns are using that, and I look forw ard to their feedback for necessary enhancements.

So we'll continue to work together with the political entities to extend assistance, but in addition I'd like to draw to your attention one important outstanding recommendation from previous reports that I believe, if acted upon, will be of tremendous value to all participants and the many political volunteers who're responsible for compliance, and specifically, I'm referring to the need for a rewrite of The Elections Finances Act. Anyone familiar with that statute will know it to be very complex and a statute that, as time has gone on and multiple amendments have been made, has only grown more and more complex.

This project would not necessarily be an easy one or a quick one, but I recommend it to you as a very important one.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Prior to the last election, The Elections Act was rewritten cover to cover in plain language, and since that, has been used in an election, held together very well, and I think it was a great asset to those seeking to understand the election rules in 2007. I think, really, this project is just another aspect of promoting democratic engagement, complementary to the notion of engaging voters, since I believe a rewritten, plainer-language finance act will assist the efforts of campaign volunteers.

Finally, between 2003 and '07, Elections Manitoba has made about 70 recommendations for legislative amendment, and I'm pleased with the participation of the political party advisory committees and the Legislature. All but very few of these have been enacted into law. But in addition to The Elections Finances Act rewrite that I have mentioned, I'd like to draw to your attention another outstanding recommendation, and that is that I believe there needs to be a Manitoba referendum act.

Certain stat utes require referenda to be held under certain circumstances, but now it's left to regulation and adaptation of other statutes. But I recommend, for all concerned, clear rules as to the conduct, including rules as to campaign financing. These should be set out in legislation as is the case in many other Canadian jurisdictions. The third outstanding recommendation–when I say outstanding, I mean in the context of not yet addressed–is, I'd like to draw your attention, are the rules that relate to the set election period for set date elections.

It's my recommendation that set date elections should also have a set date election period rather than a variable pe riod. Now the period for a set date election is at least 28 days, but not more than 35 days. I believe the period should be set. That would provide for certainty of the day of the writ. That would provide better service and efficiency in the administrative conduct of elections by Elections Manitoba.

It would further level the playing field by providing a greater–by providing a clear and known start date, and that would assist all the political campaigns to manage their resources and live within the spending limits, and I think it may assist in the recruitment of election workers and volunteers. B.C. and Ontario have set election dates and have set election periods. So in conclusion, I would like to thank all the members for their time and for their attention and also for those comments in recognition of my service. It is my honour to serve as Chief Electoral Officer of the Province of Manitoba. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Chief Electoral Officer for the opening comments. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Goertzen: Good evening, Mr. Balasko. Thank you again for coming to appear before the committee this evening. I know it's been close to a year since we had our last meeting.

You've indicated in the past that you're willing always to come to committee, and so I will assume that the inability to get a meeting date sooner than this was not of your own making but perhaps those in government. * (18:40) It was more than a–or almost a year ago that I discussed with you a letter dated December 23rd, 2004, and this comes out of a declaration made in the June 3rd, 2003, annual report that is before us tonight.

That's a letter that was written to Blair Graham, I believe, counsel for Elections Manitoba, and signed by David Asselstine, who, at the time was a forensic auditor with Elections Manitoba, and was subsequently–left the employ of yourself and Elections Manitoba at the request –or at least after some concerns raised by the NDP. In that letter–and Mr. Chairperson, I have copies of that letter if Mr. Balasko doesn't have the copy with him here tonight. On page 3, Mr.

Balasko–and the pages aren't numbered, but it's the third page sequentially, under the heading: Accounting for the Contributions in question, and I'll read–[interjection] Mr. Swan: I wonder if Mr. Goertzen has copies for all committee members, so we can follow along. Mr. Chairperson: We can make sure that the copies are made available to all members, if that will suffice. Mr. Swan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Goertzen: For the benefit of Mr. Swan and all committee members, I will read into the record the words of then-forensic auditor Mr. Asselstine.

Under the heading: Accounting for the Contributions in question, he writes: "It would appear obvious that the CEO concluded that the contributions in question were federal contributions in his evaluation of whether charges were warranted in the circumstances. It would also appear obvious that you will not be providing me any further information that would allow me to reconsider my

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 previous opinions or evaluate the appropriateness of the CEO's conclusion." I wonder if, Mr. Balasko, you could expand upon the concern that Mr. Asselstine, your forensic auditor, was relaying in that letter under that paragraph. Mr. Balasko: Thank you very much for the question. I–no, I'm not able–in a position to expand on the comments that Mr. Asselstine might wish to make. I'm sure that they're set out in the letter that you've distributed. This letter has clear reference to an investigation, and as you've mentioned in your comments, decisions on prosecution.

It's been mentioned in the opening statements tonight that the Commissioner of Elections–which, by the way, has been responsible for compliance, investigations and prosecutions since 2006, and which was a recommendation of our office, to separate investigations and prosecutions from Elections Manitoba–it's been commented that the commissioner has various new authorities, one of which is to comment on investigations and prosecutions, if it chooses to in the public interest. That's not a provision that I operated under.

It's–the provision I operated under was that investigations were required to be conducted in private. And I want to say, with complete earnestness and as clearly as I can, that the provision to conduct investigations in private and, therefore, my inability to comment on any matters related to the investigation, are consistent, 100 percent, with the legal advice we receive. They're consistent, 100 percent, with all investigations that have been conducted by Elections Manitoba over the–and I don't know exactly the number of years, but the near decade we are responsible for.

It's consistent with the position that's been taken with respect to all political parties. And so I would certainly ask you to appreciate and understand that, thoughtfully, we've looked at what we can do. We've sought advice on it, and we're acting consistent with that advice, consistent with what the law is at the time, not our will or our choice, but what the law is. I cannot comment on investigative matters, period, regardless of whether some documents may be tabled or how they come to public light.

To finish with that, though, I can–I want to tell you a little bit about the process, and I hope that perhaps laying it out once–and I appreciate your patience on this, and my answers won't go this long each time, but I want to take a moment to lay it out for all. The process in an invest igation is that there's investigative counsel. That person, in this case, and in all cases with Elections Manitoba post-Monnin inquiry, was Michael Green. Michael Green was the commission counsel to the Monnin inquiry. Michael Green was investigative counsel to Elections Manitoba, and is the current Commissioner of Elections.

And decisions on prosecution were based on the advice that we received from both investigative counsel, Mr. Green, and then –who would be prosecuting counsel, Mr. Blair Graham. They provide legal analysis throughout investi- gations. They provide advice from time to time, and, at the conclusion, they prov ide their final advice and recommendations specifically with regard to charges. So inasmuch as your comment and question relates to discussion about the laying of charges, I want to tell you that the process to lay–to determine whether charges should be laid is very, very rigorous.

It's without partisan influence completely. It's consistent with our legal advice throughout and all parties are treated the same. I very much want to say thank you, Mr. Goertzen, for your patience to allow me to lay at the table as is we see it and as we've always practised in the years we were responsible for this. Thank you. Mr. Goertzen: While I appreciate, Mr.

Balasko, your reviewing the processe s as you see it, certainly, when we've had discussions with others who have had the unfortunate experience of being prosecuted by Elections Manitoba, including the current Minister of Public Safety, his statements to us was that, in fact, the counsel who was leading the prosecution in that case indicated differently, that he was under instructions from yourself. And so there seems to be some dispute over the facts, if I could be generous, in terms of how prosecutions are either laid or how they're directed. But, more specifically, in this particular case, it's clear that Mr.

Asselstine be lieves that there were some contributions made by individuals to the provincial New Democratic Party that somehow elicited a federal tax receipt and that he believed they should have been deemed to be federal contributions, and then, as well, he wasn't able to review that belief, his belief, because he wasn't being able to get further information.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Could you indicate whether or not that is at least true, that Mr. Asselstine believed that there contributions made by individuals to the provincial New Democratic Party that somehow generated federal NDP tax receipts? Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the question. I'll let Mr. Asselstine speak for himself. I won't put words into his mouth. But let me clarify one hundred percent if there's any confusion about charges being laid and the process by which charges are laid.

We receive, following investigations, we've received detailed legal analysis from both investigative counsel Mr. Green and general counsel and prosecuting counsel Mr. Graham, and, from time to time their advice and their recommendations, and, at the conclusion of the work, I receive from each of them, from each of two counsel, specific recommendation as to whether or not charges ought to be laid in the matter. That's the process that was followed here, that's the process that's been followed in every investigation post- Monnin inquiry. That's the same process that's followed with regard to all political parties.

It's a rigorous process, it's a back and forth, and I certainly do not believe that either–I certainly know for a fact that neither Mr. Graham nor Mr. Green would have any confusion about the process. Mr. Goertzen: Can you indicate whether or not if an individual writes a cheque to the provincial New Democratic Party, whether or not that should trigger a receipt to the provincial New–receipt from the provincial New Democratic Party and from them only? Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

It depends on the circumstances of when the contribution is made, what's the law–what the law is at the moment. The law we have in Manitoba right now is that only individuals can contribute to political parties in Manitoba and transfers among political parties are not permitted. The law that was in effect at that time was that transfers were permitted among political parties. So if you have questions about the practices of the New Democratic Party, you might wish to ask the New Democratic Party of that.

If you have questions about the investigation, I'm sorry that I'm not in a position to provide that information, but, again, there's nothing that would have not been considered by counsel. All the accounting work was before both counsel, would be considered carefully, specific legal advice was received with regard to recommendations and prosecutions, and I acted consistent with that–with those recommendations. There's no mystery. * (18:50) Mr. Goertzen: Well, there may still yet be a mystery, and certainly one of those mysteries is why Mr.

Asselstine, who is recognized internationally as an auditor in his field, had a different view and why he wasn't able to continue with his investigation. So I wouldn't be as quick to say that the mystery has been solved. In fact, if an individual was donating to a provincial political party, as the law stands today, and as it stood in 1999, there would be a diminishing return. Is that not correct? That the more you are given – giving, your tax credit would be reduced as higher amounts were given. Is that correct? Mr.

Balasko: With respect to the commenting on The Elections Finances Act, that's correct, yes, and The Income Tax Act. Mr. Goertzen: And so that would be the same federally. If an individual is giving to a federal party, their earliest giving, their initial dollars, would receive a higher tax credit than subsequent dollars, which would trigger lower tax credit. There's a diminishing return, a diminishing tax credit, as higher dollar figures are given. Is that correct? Mr. Balasko: I'm not familiar with the federal act but I believe that's true. Mr.

Goertzen: So it is true that there is an incentive, at the very least, for an individual who wants to maximize tax credits. Ther e would be an incentive for them to have those tax credits split between a provincial and a federal party so that they could– their dollars could attract the highest tax credits on both sides. Mr. Balasko: Yes, there would be. Mr. Goertzen: And I want to refer to a list of individuals, who, in 1999, donated, according to the records, both to the provincial NDP and to the federal NDP, and I believe that this gets to the heart of what Mr. Asselstine's concern was.

That there were–was an intention to donate to a provincial political party, and yet it resulted in two tax receipts from a provincial New Democratic Party and from the federal New Democratic Party, which resulted in a tax benefit to the donor and didn't result in a financial detriment to the provincial political party because they could transfer–the federal party could transfer money back. As you indicated, that was the law at the time.

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 So, an individual donor could make a donation, and the provincial party could split that donation in some fashion between their federal cousins and the provincial party, and then the federal party could return that money to the provincial party, and it would seem like a win-wi n situation because the donor would get the higher tax credits and the provincial party would get the money back. The loser in that, of course, is th e taxpayer because they are paying a higher tax credit for what was clearly intended to be a donation to a political party.

I believe that that is the concern that Mr. Asselstine was raising with you, with Elections Manitoba, and that he wasn't able to conclude his investigation. Let me go through–and I appreciated the fact that you were grateful that I gave some patience. You may give some patience to me as I read through a list of individuals. Nancy Allan in 1999 donated $668.14 to the provincial NDP and $330 to the federal NDP, for a total of $998.14. That means that, in that year, she donated 67 percent of her total givings to political parties to the provincial NDP.

Steve Ashton, in that same year, gave a total between the two parties, federal and provincial, $1,920. Ironically, 67 percent of the money that he donated was to the provincial NDP. Marilyn Brick donated a total $480 in 1999. Again, ironically, 67 percent of that total donation was to the provincial NDP. Marilyn–Marianne Cerilli gave a total of $3,168.75 and, ironically, 67 percent of that total donation was to the provincial NDP. Dave Chomiak gave $2,700 and 1,800 of that was to the provincial NDP; 67 percent. Jay Cowan donated 67 percent of his total donations to the provincial NDP.

Greg Dewar, of his $3,346, donated, ironically, 67 percent to provincial NDP. Gary Doer, a name that we're familiar with, gave $4,275 between the provincial and federal NDP, and 67 percent of that went to the provincial NDP. Mr. Clif Evans gave 67 percent of his total donations to the provincial NDP. Leonard Harapiak–Jennifer Howard, gave $435 that year, 290 was to the provincial NDP and, ironically, 67 percent was the amount that went to the provincial party. Mr. Ron Lemieux gave $2,962 to the federal and provincial party; 67 percent of that, 1,975, went to the provincial NDP.

Gord Mackintosh also gave 67 percent of his total contributions to the provincial NDP. Mr. Jim Maloway gave 67 percent. Mr.–sorry, Diane McGifford gave 67 percent. Doug Martindale gave 67 percent. MaryAnn Mihychuk donated $3,397, and 67 percent of that was for the provincial NDP. Eric Robinson donated $2,655, and 67 percent of that was to the provincial NDP. Mr. Jim Rondeau gave $1,254.38, and 67 percent of that was to the provincial NDP and the remainder to the federal NDP. Mr. Tim Sale also gave 67 percent of his total donations to the provincial NDP. Mr.

Stan Struthers gave $4,333, generous as he is, and, as a coincidence, 67 percent of that went to the provincial NDP. Bill Uruski also gave 67 percent of his total donations. Rosann Wowchuk gave $3,622 and, ironically again, 67 percent of that was to the provincial NDP, and a Mr. Greg Selinger gave $1,020, and surprisingly, or perhaps not at this point, 67 percent of that was to the provincial NDP. And I think that what perhaps concerned Mr.

Asselstine was, it seemed beyond the stretch of the imagination that all of these individuals giving on their own would've miraculously all landed on this 67 percent donation contribution, that somehow this must have been one transaction or conspired as one transaction was his concern, that one cheque was being issued and then it was somebody at the central party in the provincial NDP who decided to split the donations, and then two tax receipts flowed back to these individuals so they could claim more back on their taxes. Mr. Balasko: I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, I'm not sure if there was a question. [interjection] No, in all sincerity, I'm–if there's a question, I missed it. Mr. Goertzen: I'm more than happy, Mr. Balasko, to repeat the question for you. I know there's been a bit of chirping back and forth here at the committee. The extensive list that I read indicated that all of these donors somehow miraculously, individually in their donations, in their own donation-making decisions, landed on the percentage of 67 percent that went to the provincial New Democrats and the balance went to the federal New Democrats.

Now, conveniently, the federal New Democrats transferred back tens of thousands of dollars to the provincial NDP in that year, so it didn't have the same impact on them as they were looking to run their campaign, and yet, presumably, two tax receipts were issued, one by the provincial NDP and one by the federal NDP, and yet the provincial NDP ended up with most of the money. So I think the question that Mr. Asselstine was likely raising to you was, it looks like there is an intention to give to the provincial party–that's certainly where most of the money ended up–and yet two tax receipts were issued.

Why was a federal tax receipt issued for what looks like it was an

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 orchestrated, a designed scheme to give to the provincial party? Mr. Balasko: Thanks very much. I appreciate you going over that one more time, and I understand the question. As you've described the set of circumstances, our job would be to determine whether there's been a violation, and I won't comment on the specifics of any investigation, but our job would be to determine: is there a violation?

And the way we would do that would be to consider all the work we've taken so far, all of the accounting work–which, by the way, was available to both counsel and to myself–to review that, to seek opinions from two lawyers to get from them their advice, to get from them, at the end of a very–of a process that's very rigorous, their final recommendations on whether or not in any case there would be a violation. So our job is to determine violations, and so, while I can't comment on the specifics of–that you're putting in front of me right now, our job would be to determine the violation.

The process we use is two independent counsel. They come with their final advice. I act consistent with their advice. That's our role in this. The way parties structure themselves and the tax-receipting practices of parties becomes our concern when there may be a violation under the legislation, and if that's the case, we'd look at it, we'd receive advice, and we'd act consistent with that advice. * (19:00) Mr. Goertzen: Of course you were getting different advice. You were getting different advice from your forensic auditors.

So you chose, presumably, and we haven't seen the advice that you were given, and maybe we'll be privy to that, but you chose, obviously, to ignore one set of advice but to take another set of advice. Would it be a violation for an individual to intend to give money to a provincial political party and yet receive a donation from a federal political party? Is that a violation, sir? Mr. Balasko: With regard, Mr. Goertzen, to the information that I receive, because at the end of the day I make the decision, I make the decision based on the advice that I have received.

I have privy access to all the accounting work that's been done. Both counsel have access to all of that. At the end of the day, when we're talking about our job, which is to ensure that any potential violations are investigated, when it comes to the end of the day, mindful of the accounting information, it's the legal analysis that really bears most on whether charges are laid in any circumstance, and I'm speaking of process.

And so while we may have access to all kinds of information across the board, everyone on the investigative team, or the two lawyers and myself have access to all that information, they give me their specific advice at the end of the day, and I acted consistently with their advice at the end of the day. Mr. Goertzen: That wasn't my question, sir. My question was whether or not it would be a violation of the act, as it existed in 1999 or today, for an individual to intend to give money to a provincial political party and to get a federal tax receipt in return. Mr.

Balasko: I'm not going to speculate on the application of the law in a situation where you're talking about the intention of an individual to provide money. If money is provided to a provincial political party: entitled to provincial tax credit. If it's provided to the federal political party: entitled to the federal tax credit. So that's the specific answer to your question. As far as the intention of a donor, that's not something that, you know, reasonably, I can speculate on. Mr.

Goertzen: Well, you know, I think, actually, reasonably, when you have all these individuals who precisely gave this particular split, and then the provincial party got the money back from the federal NDP, in an election year–because I can't imagine, as generous as someone as Mrs. Howard and others might be– An Honourable Member: Ms. Mr. Goertzen: –that when they've lost– An Honourable Member: Not married. Mr. Goertzen: –when–while there's– An Honourable Member: Not yet anyways. Mr. Goertzen: –where–we're hopeful– An Honourable Member: I'm hopeful too. Is that a proposal? Mr. Goertzen: –and when there is–

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 An Honourable Member: He's married. He's taken. Mr. Goertzen: – when there's all these individuals who are precisely giving– Mr. Chairperson: Order. Mr. Goertzen: –this particular split on a donation, it certainly looks as though this was somehow not a coincidence, that, in fact, there was some sort of direction.

And in an election year in 1999 where the then Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that he would need to win that election to remain in his position, it seems strange to me–and I suspect it would stretch the bounds of imaginations for most people–that he would be directing so much of his funds to a federal political party that wasn't fighting in an election that year as he was, and direct all of these individuals close to him to direct all of this money to the federal NDP unless he had an assurance that that money was coming back at some point. So that is certainly something that adds to the suspicion, Mr.

Balasko, but the specific question is: If an individual wrote a cheque out to the provincial New Democratic Party, for whatever amount it would be, a hundred dollars or $300, should they not receive one tax receipt for that amount? Mr. Balasko: The answer to the question is: Tax receipts are provided fo r contributions to the provincial political party where that's where the contribution is going, and tax receipts would be provided from the federal political party if that's where the money is going. [interjection] Floor Comment: No, that's right. That's the right answer. Mr. Goertzen: Right.

So if an individual wrote out a cheque to the provincial New Democratic Party for a hundred dollars, that's where the receipt should be coming from for the amount that the cheque was written out for. Mr. Balasko: My statement was that the contributions to provincial political parties are provincially tax receipted, and I'm speaking in a general process, and the same thing would be true federally. The arrangements that political parties have themselves, the structure that political parties have, they have different structur es.

The fact that transfers are allowed at that time, these are all other factors that would go into it. But what I can tell you, without going further or down the road of commenting on the investigation because, again, you're introducing information which is a part of an investigation, I'm not able to comment on that information.

But I can tell you that in any investigation, counsel and myself would have access to all this information, would look at it from every conceivable angle, and at the end of the day I'd receive final legal advice on whether it's a violation, and that's our responsibility: is there a violation or not a violation in a circumstance. So that's, again, the process of investigations, and I cannot comment on the specifics of an investigation. Mr.

Goertzen: I think you can understand how this stretches the bounds of reasonableness for most individuals, to believe that all of these people, acting individually and on their own, would give exactly the same percentage to the provincial party and to the federal party, and that all of these people, in an election year, who all had a vested interest in the New Democrats' winning election that year, would decide that they would hive off a certain percent of the donations to the federal NDP, who weren't running an election that year, who didn't have the stakes that Mr.

Doer and the New Democratic party did, unless there was some assurance that that money was coming back, and in fact tens of thousands of dollars did come back. And so, I can understand from–if this is what Mr. Asselstine's concern was, why he would look at it, as though I think most people would, that these were intended to be donations to the provincial party, that they would end up back in the provincial party's coffers, and in fact they did end up in the provincial party's coffers.

And yet, individuals, some of them who sat at this table today, opened up their mail at some point in a new year of 2000 and found themselves with two tax receipts. Ironically, there was a lot of individuals, most of whom were lawyers for the NDP, who didn't, in fact, participate in this scheme, who gave significant amounts of money, similar to the kind of money that I described here, but who didn't get two different tax receipts.

Maybe that's because of their legal profession, it sort of waried them off, but I suspect that most individuals, if they were to give $100 to the Red Cross and got a $50 receipt from the Red Cross and a $50 receipt from Siloam Mission, both of which are worthy charities, would wonder why they were getting two receipts for one donation. And, I–you know, I'm not really asking for you to comment on the scenario, because I think that

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 speaks for itself, but there is law that was being governed at the time that you were partially responsible for ensuring was enforced. And I'm simply asking you: If an individual, regardless of the situation–if I hadn't asked you any of this before–if an individual was writing out a cheque to the provincial New Democratic Party for $100, would you expect them to get a tax receipt from that party for $100, or for $66 and then another $33 tax receipt from the federal party? An Honourable Member: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Swan, on a point of order. Mr. Swan: Mr. Goertzen has now asked the same question, I believe, five times, and Mr. Balasko has given, I think, a very full and fair answer as the Chief Electoral Officer of Manitoba. And, once again, I made my concerns– [interjection] I raised my concerns earlier on about what I think is effective abuse of conduct of the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr. Goertzen has chosen to make lengthy

preambles and then has come back to a question that Mr. Balasko has now answered, I believe, five times. I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to ask Mr. Goertzen to move on. If he has no further questions for Mr. Balasko, I believe there's a number of members from all three parties that do have some further questions, so we can get on with it. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen, on the point of order. Mr. Goertzen: I'm quite happy to hear, at some point–we have a four-hour meeting, I understand– questions from other members of this committee. I'm sure Mr.

Swan–he may want to answer some of the questions, because he may have also have been given–in that–we might be getting to that yet. But, Mr. Chairperson, it's not up to Mr. Swan to determine whether or not we received an answer to a question that I asked. That is not his prerogative. And if I feel that there was something missing in the response, or that perhaps it was my fault, that I wasn't clear in the question that I asked and I want to re-pose that question, I don't believe that Mr. Swan is or should make himself the arbitrator of that decision. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, same point of order? Mr.

Lamoureux: Same point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I would suggest that, if you do look at tradition, whether it's inside committee room or inside the Legislature, the repetition of questions has always been acceptable in both committee rooms and inside the Legislature. I think the member from Minto, minister– [interjection]–Minto is fine? The member from Minto is just a little bit nervous because he might have got his hands caught in the cookie jar once again, maybe in an unethical fashion.

And I would suggest to you that it is an appropriate question, and the member from Steinbach should be able to continue to repeat the question in order to provide better clarification for all committee members. It's a very good point. I would be a little red in the face, too. Mr.

Chairperson: On the point of order raised by the honourable member–and I thank all members of the committee for their advice on the point of order– it's been the practice of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to allow for questions pertaining to the same subject numerous times, and there is, from my understanding and the advice that I have received, there is no rule that prohibits the repeating of a question a number of times. * (19:10) I would like to caution all members, though, that questions that I have been listening here from time to time, appear to be hypothetical in nature, and I'd ask all members to take into consideration they want to steer away from questions th at may be treading into the area of being hypothetical and ask the more direct questions.

And I would also once again ask all the members to conduct themselves by asking the questions through the Chair and not to each other across the table and the same with responders as well. With respect to the point of order raised by the honourable member, I must respectfully rule that there is no point of order in this case. * * * Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and I will refrain from noting that the–Mr. Swan also donated $1,892 in that year and a similar proportion went back to the provincial party. The Attorney General–I'm sure he can find his own legal advice on this.

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 Mr. Balasko indicates–and thank you, Mr. Chairperson–Mr. Balasko indicated that there was an investigation that was undertaken. If there had only been–or if there had been two cheques written, one to the provincial NDP and one to the federal NDP, would there have been a need for an investigation, because that would have seemed clear then what the intent was? Mr. Balasko: Responsibility–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I'm going to ask for the consideration of all honourable members.

It is very difficult for the Chair to occasionally hear the questions and answers, so I'm asking for consideration of all members of this committee to please show some restraint and allow for the questions and answers to be–to take place. Mr. Balasko: I won't speculate on hypotheticals. I will simply say that I'll continue to comment on the process that's followed at Elections Manitoba. I'm not able to comment on the specifics of an investigation. That's something that's in statute.

But, you know, I want to say that it's–let that not be misinterpreted in some way that there's anything less than complete confidence in the investigation, because there's absolute confidence in the investigation. And I understand, speaking from my perspective and that of the legal counsel that provide advice to me, that our inve stigations, where they're conducted, is a process, are a matter of determining whether there's been a violation in law, and that's our focus and that's our job.

And so in arriving at the determination of whether there's been a violation of law and whether there ought to be a prosecution following from that, that's a matter which I am fortunate to receive legal advice from two of the best–the best two in this business in the province: Michael Green, having been counsel to the Monnin inquiry, investigative counsel for many years and Commissioner of Elections today, Blair Graham, general counsel for over 20 years to Elections Manitoba and the prosecuting counsel for Elections Manitoba.

In any investigation, both provide their final specific advice as to whether or not there's been violations and whether charges ought to be laid. And so I would tell you that in any matter that we would investigate, I have acted consistent with the advice that I've received, and it's very good and credible advice from the–probably the strongest two people in this field in the province. And I think it through carefully myself. I make the decision, but I make it with extremely strong advice. So our job is to determine violations where there's an investigation.

And my actions on the investigations are consistent with the legal advice that I receive. Mr. Goertzen: And yet there was advice from Mr. Asselstine which you chose to not take or to simply ignore. It seems obvious that if Mr.–if there had been two cheques written out by these individuals, including Mr. Swan and Mrs. Howard and Premier Selinger– An Honourable Member: Ms. Mr. Goertzen: –and Mr. Struthers– An Honourable Member: You're determined to marry me off tonight. Mr. Goertzen: –I'm doing my best.

The–had there been two cheques that would have been written, this would never would have come to the attention of Mr. Asselstine because one cheque would have gone to the federal NDP, one cheque would have come to the provincial NDP, and he never would have been any of the wiser that–I mean, it would have been a normal transaction. He never would have seen those two cheques. Is that not correct? So is it not true that it must have been a one-track–a one-cheque transaction to catch his attention? Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the question. I'm not going speculate on what was in Mr.

Asselstine's mind and what caught his attention, but I'm going to tell you again, respectfully, that our job is to determine whether practices, whatever the practice is, constitutes a violation under the statute, and that's something we take very, very seriously. None of the accounting advice was disregarded; completely considered in its entirety, provided available to both counsel. So we took together all the information we had in any circumstance as a process of investigations– I'm sorry, I just wanted to finish my response. [interjection] I'm fine.

So we take, as a matter of process, all of the information available–and counsel provide their advice–and act consistent with their advice. So again, on process–and I can't speculate on what's in other people's minds and I won't speculate on contributors and political party organization but to the extent that it may be a violation. And if it's violation, then it's

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 investigated. And if it's investigated and found, through legal advice, to be a violation, then it's prosecuted. It's as straightforward as that. Mr. Goertzen: And again, you were getting conflicting advice at the time. I wonder if you sought advice from those in Revenue Canada or from Elections Canada, since there were federal tax receipts at play here and a question–raised a question in Mr. Asselstine's mind about whether or not these were intended to be federal contributions.

Would you have sought advice from CCRA, Elections Canada, the RCMP, any of those bodies, sir? Mr. Balasko: I'm not in a discussion with you about the specifics of any investigation. I'm referring to the process of an investigation, so let me answer it from the perspective of a process. Where we've encountered things in the past that if they may have had criminal aspect to it, we would, you know, share information or have a discussion with criminal authorities. If that were a case.

And so, you can imagine that, if we were looking at any kind of matter that would have an impact beyond Manitoba's borders, that we, as a matter of process, would probably touch base, but that's process. Mr. Goertzen: Have you made a determination, or your legal counsel has made a determination, that there wasn't a violation, would that contact have happened and at what depth would it have happened? Mr. Balasko: I won't speculate on every depth and every purpose of what set of circumstances might come up.

I'm just responding to you with regard to our process and the process that we would follow and we'd make that determination. So, I'm not here to discuss with you the specifics of any investigation– which I can't do and I know you understand that. Mr. Goertzen: A number of organizations, including media, including individuals, have called for a public inquiry into the issue of the rebate scheme, I'll label it, and the subsequent investigation, or some might say, lack thereof.

These are additional questions that go on top of those questions relating to getting two tax receipts for what seem to be one donation to a provincial political party. Would you welcome the opportunity to testify at a public inquiry, sir? An Honourable Member: Point of order. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Swan, point of order. Mr. Swan: Mr. Chair, there's more hypothetical questions which apparently is all Mr. Goertzen has left, now based on the straw man that he's built over the past couple of questions.

That is not a fair question to put to the Chief Electoral Officer and I would ask you to find the question is out of order. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, on the point of order raised? Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, the member from Minto is in fact disrupting what I believe is a good line of questioning. If the member from Minto would like to interrupt, maybe he could tell the committee whether or not he wrote one cheque or two cheques. Then I would suggest to you that members of all the committee–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux: –would welcome his contributions.

But to sit quiet on that particular issue and then to raise a point of order in order to try to disrupt the line of questioning, is highly inappropriate. If he wants to continue to interrupt, tell us whether or not he wrote one or two cheques. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I'm going to ask the committee members here tonight to, once again, direct their comments through the Chair, please, and any questions that you might have also through the Chair.

My role as the Chairperson is to make sure that this committee functions in an efficient manner and I'm sensing that we're starting to stray away from the rules or principles that guide these committee proceedings. So I'm asking all members for your consideration once again.

Please direct your comments through the Chair, not to each other across the table. * (19:20) If there's no further comme nt with respect to the point of order then I'll indicate for members here tonight, with regard to the issue of hypothetical questions: while Marleau and Montpetit make no prohibition against hypothetical questions, whether in this committee proceedings or in question period, our rules and procedural authorities do not offer direct guidance on this matter in other debates such as committees.

However, previous chairpersons have allowed such questions in committee and I will allow this particular question, but I would remind committee members that are present here tonight that

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 they are not obligated to answer hypothetical questions. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Now, who had the floor here? Mr. Goertzen asked the question? Can you comment? Miss Howard, next question please. Ms. Howard: I appreciated your comments, Mr. Balasko, about making the election process more accessible, providing more opportunities for people to vote and your hope that that would help increase voter turnout.

One of the areas that I'm responsible for is also people with disabilities, and I recently had the opportunity to read about a federal decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as it related to Elections Canada, and it was a complaint launched. I don't know if you're familiar with the case, I'll just outline it briefly. There was a complaint launched by a gentleman who had trouble accessing a polling station. There was some stairs that he had to get down. He used a walker.

He had to go down the stairs in a way that was fairly undignified, so he went to the Human Rights Commission, and I think the order was that there has to be barrier-free access in an election. So I was wondering if you had any reflections on that decision; how we've handled in the past making polling stations barrier free and what plans, if any, you might have in the future to make sure that people with disabilities can get in to polling stations. Mr. Balasko: Well, thank you very much for the question. It's an extremely important point and one I touched on when I reviewed the advances in Manitoba over time.

Voting stations need to be accessible. We have been measuring that in provincial elections. Because I'm not completely familiar–I'm aware of the complaint federally–but I would, rather than speak to that, if I could talk about Manitoba. I believe that our accessibility is 98 percent or 99 percent in terms of voting stations in the province and it's been in that range for now several general elections, so when we seek out voting locations we seek out locations that are accessible.

And there are other provisions in the law in the event that we cannot find an accessible location and that would involve moving the voting materials within 50 metres to the person who can't enter the building, but that's really a failsafe. We've not had to use that or use that very often over all of the years. We have worked with community buildings to install ramps, for example, so that voters can enter the building and are left with–the facilities left with a legacy of accessible loca tion. So extremely, extremely important.

The record we have now is about 98, 99 percent, but, of course, we'd like it to be, you know, 100 percent. It's–actually, I've just been advised by Mary that locations which are not completely barrier free are 0.2 percent in the province of Manitoba. So we continue to try to do better, but that's where we are at the moment. It's extremely important. Ms.

Howard: Well, I think that's very good news, and I would congratulate you and commend you for that progress and also the comments you made that that work has also enabled accessibility to be put in places where it wasn't befo re and provides a lasting legacy to a community. I think that's a very important contribution that Elections Manitoba has made to accessibility in the province. Where in those 0.2 percent–and I can't think–I can't do the math as quickly as Mr.

Goertzen, so I couldn't tell you what that means in terms of number of polling stations–but, in those few instances where they aren't accessible, is the reason just that there is no accessible space in that community? What are some of the difficulties that you face in those very few instances where it's not accessible in making it so? Mr. Balasko: Well, thank you for the question. We carefully review every single voting location to make sure that it meets our accessibility criteria. Where it doesn't, it's most often that, for example, in a rural community we might not have the choice of additional locations.

Often, you know, we'll have accessibility to the main floor, and if we can locate our voting station there, we will, but the odd time we have only one building to choose from and we cannot get the main level, for example. So, people would have to bring the materials from the second level to the first level to allow the person to vote, in those very rare cases that that comes up. Ms.

Howard: I guess one of my other responsibilities has to do with immigration, and I wonder what kinds–as you probably know, there is increasing numbers of newcomers to Manitoba, increasing diversity of our province, and these folks come here, they become citizens, they're very anxious to participate in the process. I wonder if you could fill us in on some of the things that Elections Manitoba has been doing to reach out to that

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 community, to help inform them of the democratic rights and responsibilities in Manitoba and to help them also engage in the electoral process. Mr. Balasko: Well, thank you for the question. I mean, I'm really excited about this sort of stuff. This is the role, really, for election agencies, I believe, to be engaging people in the democratic exercise. Specifically, what are some things we're doing?

Well, one of the things is we make sure we have full advantage of all ethnic newspapers and means of communication, both when we're staffing positions, to involve people in the election process, as well as providing information about elections. So, in multi languages through ethnic newspapers and otherwise. Two other things we're doing now that are, I think, really, really interesting, very exited about–the first is with the adult literacy centres where, of course, many new immigrants will go to achieve the command of the English language to a higher level.

We've taken Your Power to Choose, which is the program in the schools in six, nine and 11, and it's been adapted to an ESL learning environment, and we're working together with the ESL learning network, and we will soon be announcing the introduction of Your Power to Choose in an ESL context, throughout the learning centres in the province. So that's another way that we're able to introduce, at a basic level of English language, the prospects for voting in the province, the procedures and the importance of democracy.

The other thing that we're doing is we have now got a public communications mandate which is relatively new. So we have diligently been building an address or a data base of community groups because we think that the way to engage people in democratic exercise is grass roots up. And so the contact with community groups includes community groups in the ethnic community and representing new Manitobans. And so, again, we're very active with that.

And, finally, we're also exploring, with Elections Canada, joint ways on a number of fronts, but this front in particular, joint ways that we can work through citizenship courts, together with Elections Canada and ourselves, to have a presence and to greet new citizens with, you know, helpful information about elections in Manitoba. Ms. Howard: I want to thank you very much for those comments, Mr. Balasko.

I think it's–that work that you're doing to expand your outreach to voters who may be participating for the first time is commendable, and I also want to thank you for your tremendous public service to Manitoba in your years with us and wish you the best on your retirement. Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Balasko, first of all, I just wanted to also add my compliments to Ms. Howard's in regards to accessibility. I'm very pleased to see that that's part of your consideration, when you look at a voting station, to see whether or not that would be suitable for all of our population. So, congratulations on that.

My questions relate to the 2007 annual report, and one of the paragraphs in here says that the final voter turnout for the general election was 56.75 percent, which was an increase from the 2003 turnout of 54 percent. So I'm wondering if you could give us some idea why you feel that that voter turnout was higher in 2007 than it was in 2003. Mr. Balasko: Thank you, and thank you for your comments, and Ms. Howard, as well. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

It, of course, comes from having an outstanding staff, and we're really blessed with that, and Manitoba will continue to be blessed with that in Elections Manitoba. In terms of voting and not voting, it's a very, very complex issue, and I will offer some thoughts as to why I think the voter turnout went up. * (19:30) But the first thing we've done at Elections Manitoba over two elections now, is we've engaged Prairie Research Associates, which has done a telephone survey of both voters and non-voters to try to best understand the reasons why people vote and why they choose not to vote.

And we've put that information up in its entirety on our Web site in 2003 and 2007, so that this could encourage the public debate and creative thinking about ways to address voter turnout, because we cer tainly don't expect that we have all the answers on this. But it's really interesting to note, at the same time, that the increase in the number of voters in 2007 is virtually identical to the increase in advance voting in 2007. And I understand from a research perspective what a complex puzzle this is; it's something I've done, personally, research in before coming to this job.

So I know it's difficult and everyone is grappling with how to cut through it, but I think that the essence of it and the essence of why there were more people voting in the last election in a similar circumstance was that we took the voting

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 stations to where the people happened to be, and that's, you know, it's turning the concept on its head, you know. We've been set up to go to the community centres down the street, and that's a wonderful concept, and something we'll always keep, but at the same time, it's important to put voting opportunities in front of people as they're shopping, as they're at the airport, and so that's we did in Manitoba, and it's the– An Honourable Member: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Howard, on a point of order. Ms.

Howard: I'm just having a little trouble hearing. Perhaps you could ask the opposition to go to their caucus room if they needed to caucus in between questions, or if they're not interested in this line of questioning I'm sure they could call for adjournment. But I'm just having a little trouble hearing over the din across the way. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen, on the same point of order? Mr.

Goertzen: Yes, we were actually having a very passionate debate about accessibility and different things regarding the discussion that you had, and we are more than happy to let the din die down a bit and the minister can hear the answers, and I hope she'll look forward to hearing answers to other questions that are yet to come. Mr. Chairperson: Further comment? I thank the honourable member for the point of order raised.

I must ca ution, once again, all honourable members to direct their comments through the Chair and to give consideration for those that are either asking questions or providing answers to this committee, and I ask for your consideration in that regard. I must rule in this case that there is no point of order, but a caution to honourable members is therefore necessary to all members. * * * Mr. Chairperson: To continue with the answer, Mr. Balasko, please. Mr.

Balasko: So really, in terms of the voter turnout–although, you know, no one can claim to have that answer because it's very complex, many, many factors–but I do believe that it's reasonable that a contributing factor was the vote anywhere of advance locations. And not just the locations, but the law has been changed so that there is no longer a requirement to establish a need to vote at advance voting. It used to be you'd have to provide a reason: I expect to be out of town, or whatever it might be. So now, for advance voting, there's no longer a reason necessary to be given.

There's no particular oath that you have to swear that you're unable to attend on election day, which was, I believe, a detriment to many people. And so, with the extension–and I think it's–I don't think anyone comes near to the number of days we have, as well, now: eight days, two Saturdays and a Sunday, that, other than the Sunday, it's 8 till 8, and the Sunday's noon till 6–that, really, what's starting to evolve, I believe, is less so an election day with exceptional advance voting, more so eight rolling days of voting.

And I think that with people's busy lives these days that, as we go to the notion of eight days of rolling voting leading to an election and putting the voting stations more and more where people happen to be–they happened to go shopping that day or they happened to go to a movie that day and they bumped into a voting station and so they voted–I think if we follow those two tacks that we can make a contribution to voter turnout. But fundamentally, I do believe, as I mentioned at the outset, that this is–I mean, I really liken it to charitable giving.

The co mmunity comes together, and it talks about All Charities and otherwise, and it– this value, through the research, is very highly held. Two thirds of non-voters say voting is very important to them, and yet they don't vote. So, overwhelmingly, Manitobans believe in the value; it's a matter of mobilizing that value. And that's not just for electoral offices or political parties. Ms.

Brick: I guess, just a follow-up on that is, one of the things you speak about in this 2007 annual report as well is expanded communication mandate, and you talk about the 2007 election media buy included broader radio and television exposure as well as media not purchased before, such as transit, cinema and Web advertising. Now, we know that a lot of the youth are very mobile in terms of the Web. They're definitely out there and that's one of their communication vehicles. And I'm wondering if you have a plan to expand on

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 that in the 2011 election and what your thoughts are about that. Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the question. Electoral agencies across North America and beyond are concerned with the engagement, in particular, of youth, with voting, because what had before been described as a generational effect, that when youth began to–became to acquire the attributes of mortgages and other things, that they became more interested in politics and they voted.

That transition has tended to lag, and so the uptake among youth, as they turn somewhat older, and engage more in the business of life, the uptake has not been quite as much. How best, then, to reach youth? Firstly, I'd say that our–so, yes, we've identified this as an important outreach program. We're interested in approaching it both long-term, in terms of grade 6, 9 and 11 through the schools, because we really believe that, since the values are there, if we can expose, progressively, those ages to the voting experience, that they will more likely carry that on.

And, by the way, a lot of those exercises are taken home to the household, where they're discussed at the dinner table, hopefully, if the assignment is done, because research also tells us that you're more likely to vote if you come from a home where politics is discussed and where voting is discussed. We're looking at all the new social media, from Facebook to Twitter, all thes e vehicles, to determine how we might be able to leverage that, but it's a very difficult group to reach.

We're looking also at their habits of many youth, which include moviegoing and things like that, and the ability to put voting stations at those locations. Mr. Lamoureux: I think that what I'd like to do and, as interesting as those questions are, and, you know, I think that if we actually had an inquiry which was being asked for, that we'd probably be able to get onto more dialogue on those types of questions. Unfortunately, I think th at there's a number of issues that are before us, as a committee, that deal with ethical behaviour.

And, to that extent, you know, I learnt something new here this evening that I think is worthwhile in terms of pursuing. Mr. Chair, we're very much aware of the number of candidates who were involved in a situation where there was some changed documents, in terms of election returns, somewhere in the neighbourhood of an impact potential of $75,000-plus, and there was no action taken in regards to that. Many Manitobans, I believe, are very sceptical, in terms of why it is that no action was taken on that particular issue.

And then, this evening, I come in and, in listening to the member from Steinbach, another issue comes up. And, again, it becomes an issue of what I would classify as ethical behaviour. And–to what degree does Elections Manitoba, or what role does Elections Manitoba have, in trying to ensure that there is appropriate behaviour by all political parties, when it's dealing with the finances?

The reality of the situation is, based on the percentages, and I don't hear–and there's a number of them, you know, out of the names that were listed off, there's at least four of those that are present here this evening that could have responded, could have said something to provide some clarity to the issue. But they chose not to do that, so I'm going to make the assumption that out of that list, when we talk about that 67 percent, I believe that's more than just a coincidence.

I do believe that it gets right at the core of, once again, what sort of behaviour the New Democratic Party feels is appropriate in raising money, or in, at least, what appears to be two cases, taking money away from the taxpayer in a highly inappropriate fashion. And I think that that's–would be–would appear as what's taken place here, Mr. Chair. And I ask the Chief El ectoral Officer if he believes that there is an expectation from the public that political parties would behave ethically in dealing with the tax credit. Is there not that expectation that that would be the case? * (19:40) Mr.

Balasko: Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux, for the question. I won't speculate on what any member of the public would consider to be ethical or not ethical. I think the people would arrive at their own decisions on that. Elections Manitoba's rule–role–is to investigate matters, and if violations are determined, to prosecute matters.

Now, the notion of ethical behaviour is something that I know you've raised in the past with regard to the ethical code of conduct, which all political parties have subscribed to in the Manitoba Legislature, but that's not something that Elections Manitoba is responsible for or part of our mandate to enforce that. That's intended to be a self-regulating code of ethical conduct among the political parties,

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 and it's there to be referred to by whomever might like to use it as a reference point in coming at to their own conclusion of what's ethical and what's not ethical. Our job is to determine, in this role of investigations and prosecutions, which, as I say, we've not been in since 2006, but when it was our responsibility, our responsibility there, very clearly, was to determine whether or not there was a violation of the law and whether or not charges ought to be laid, and that's the process that we have built ourselves vigorously around.

That's a process that's free of political interference. That's a process that acts consistent with the final legal advice of two outside and outstanding counsel, and that's the process we've followed since day one we entered this responsibility, until day last when we left the responsibility. Mr. Lamoureux: And I do want to get on to that code of ethics.

But to simplify the issue as I understand it, in this particular situation–and I would ask that I be corrected if I'm wrong–it would be similar to a individual–what members, a number of the New Democratic MLAs did, or have alleged to have done, would have been something to the effect of make a contribution to a political party using one cheque, and then some sort of an internal mechanism within the party allowed for that cheque to be divided on a certain percentage so that they would have a maximum tax benefit. I believe that Manitobans as a whole would see that as an unethical way of–or an unethical behaviour.

And I don't know whether or not this is an issue that was actually raised to the Chief Electoral Officer outside of the letter. There was a letter from Mr. Asselstine that was tabled here this evening. Is this the only time in which Elections Manitoba would have been made aware of that situation, through this particular letter, or was it ever brought up prior or after? Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the question, Mr. Lamoureux. We're talking now about the notion of a letter that refers to an investigation.

Investigations are not something that we can comment on, but certainly, you know, all the forensic work in any investigation would be made available to the counsel who provide their advice on which I take decisions. But, again, going back to our mandate. Our mandate is to determine whether or not there's a violation of the law. And so I just want to be very, very clear on that. There's a couple of discussions going on, and I won't speculate hypothetically also on the way parties may organize themselves around receiving contributions or providing contributions. I'm sure each party has its own way of doing that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would you say, based on the Monnin report, would you say that political parties adhering to a code of conduct, a professional code of conduct, as a political entity, is an important component to our democratic process? Mr. Balasko: Yes, thank you very much for the question. Chief Justice Monnin highlighted the importance of ethical conduct among political parties and Elections Manitoba took a lead role–not required, but on our own initiative–to bring together the political parties and provide a sort of a brokering role to arrive at a code of ethical conduct. It's beyond our mandate.

So the answer to your question, I think, is something to be discussed with legislators and Manitobans, but it's not Elections Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: But you would recognize the value of having a code of ethics for political parties in the province of Manitoba? Correct, yes? Mr. Balasko: Your Chief Justice Monnin identified that as important and, as I say, we took a leadership role in bringing that together among the political parties. So we did invest in the creation of the code of conduct, which, again, by the way, is–it's on the Web site, you know, for all to see.

Beyond that, it's a responsibility that lies elsewhere to take that forward; it's not Elections Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: How would the public, as a whole, know whether or not that code of ethics is actually being applied to or that political parties are holding themselves to account based on that code of ethics? Is there anything that we can test it that would demonstrate that it has been successful in the province? Mr. Balasko: I'm really not the best one to ask about that since we've brokered the ethical code of conduct. We have it on the Web site. It's there to be used.

And the notion was that, through the give and take, through, you know, just different oversight and debate and otherwise, that it would be a useful reference point. But we don't maintain the code and we don't apply the code and there really is nowhere other than the self-regulating nature where you'd find the answers to the kinds of questions that you're asking about. I don't have the answer to your question.

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Mr. Lamoureux: So what we do is we have this code of ethics and it's up to the political entity in question to apply the code of ethics to their own behaviour, correct? Mr. Balasko: Yes, the mechanism in the code of conduct is that each political party is to have its own process by which complaints of ethical misconduct can be received and those can be dealt with within the political party. But there's no sort of third-party arm's length regulating it as we do, for example, with offences under the statute.

We've got Elections Manitoba before we had the Commissioner of Elections. Now we have the Commissioner of Elections since 2006, that's the arm's length. There's nothing equivalent to that in the ethical conduct. Mr. Lamoureux: I had an incident, and the Chief Electoral Officer would be familiar with the issue in regards to a staff member in side the Premier's office. It was a very hotly discussed and debated issue, and the government one day pronounced that Elections Manitoba has cleared that individual, that he did nothing wrong.

Did Elections Manitoba ever make any statement, formal statement, saying that there was no inappropriate behaviour from a staff person from the Premier's office? Mr. Balasko: Thanks for the question. I won't comment on what might have or might have not been said by others. With regard to Elections Manitoba, when we were responsible for investigations and prosecutions, at the conclusion of an investigation, if charges were laid, it's public. It's in the courts system. It's in the open court process.

If an investigation was concluded and charges weren't laid, the source of the complaint would be advised that it wouldn't be going forward. And, on request, and most often, the subject, but not always, the subject would be advised of the outcome from our office. So that's the end of our comment or action on any investigation. Mr. Lamoureux: So if charges are not laid, does that mean the person is innocent of any wrongdoing? Mr. Balasko: Mr.

Lamoureux, I really don't–it's very difficult and I wouldn't want to continue to speculate or go down the road on certain circumstances because that's not our role and that's not why I'm here. Our job is to determine whether there's a violation of the law and that's what we put our mind to and that's what we built our rigorous process around doing that.

As a matter of fact, since the days of the Monnin inquiry, we reorganized the way we investigated and made decisions on prosecutions, and the way we did that was to have a clear investigative counsel outside of Elections Manitoba, and so that's Michael Green from Green and Dixon, outside the office, take any investigation where he thinks it needs to be taken.

We built in the other notion of having two counsel because we realize that for an office like ours where our credibility is very important, we work hard at maintaining it, that we need to, as best we can, demonstrate through our process and through the individuals involved that there's great credibility. And so one of the other changes we made is to have two counsel provide us advice. And we act consistent with the advice of both those people. So our job is–was until 2006, investigations and prosecutions, and that's how we organized around it.

I understand and–your comments about a code of ethical conduct, but Chief Justice Monnin made the recommendations on that and we've taken the first step, which is the code. And it's to legislators and others to take it the next step, it's not with Elections Manitoba. * (19:50) Mr. Lamoureux: I only have a few more questions and I'll try to keep them right to the point.

I think that it's important, based in terms of what you've been saying not only at this meeting but previous meetings, did Elections Manitoba indicate that the individual in question from the Premier's office–did Elections Manitoba give any public indication that the individual was cleared of any wrongdoing? I don't quite understand why you can't say yes or no to that answer. Mr. Balasko: Thank you for the question.

The answer is that at the conclusion of an investigation, what we do is we write to advise the person who made the complaint of the outcome, and often we would write to the–or advise the person who is the subject of the complaint. Mr. Lamoureux: I did–there was another issue that came up, and it dealt with inappropriate behaviour, again, from very close individuals to the former premier. And that individual actually had come to me, and I had written a letter on that individual's behalf, and it was in the Wellington riding, and she was a candidate at one point.

And I received a letter from Elections Manitoba saying that it was out of their jurisdiction, that it was

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 up to the code of ethics and the political parties to apply the code of ethics. Would that, in fact, be the case in that particular situation? Mr. Balasko: I'm not sure I recall the details of the particular question you're talking about, I mean, generally speaking. But in any event, if we receive a complaint, you know, we won't discuss complaints and we can't discuss complaints.

So we can either dispense with them by determining that there's nothing to the complaint or determining that there's nothing within our authority to the complaint or investigating a complaint. Mr. Lamoureux: I actually have the Monnin report, and this is what it says in regards–regarding the code of ethics, and I think the code of ethics is critical here. You see, if we had a proper code of ethics, I would suggest to you, maybe the need for a public inquiry wouldn't be as great.

But this is what the Monnin report stated, and I quote recommendation No. 3: that all registered political parties follow the recommendations of the federal Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing published in November 1991, often referred to as the Lortie report, and prepare a code of ethics as outlined therein as well as a mechanism whereby such a code or provisions therefore to be strictly adhered to. Someone must have the power to oversee the activities of others.

If the political parties fail to implement a code of ethics by December 31st, 2001, the standard code of–the standard code be made compulsory–I'm sorry–by legislation. Why wouldn't Elections Manitoba, given the very importance of that recommendation and how critically important it is that there be integrity within the system, insist that there be a legislative code of ethics that has the–that–where there's some actual teeth to it, so that, whether it's the New Democrats, the Conservatives or Liberals, can actually be held to account for their behaviour?

Why wouldn't Elections Manitoba advocate for mandatory legislation? Mr. Balasko: Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux. We're all aware of the recommendation made by Chief Justice Monnin, and that's the source of it. And I want to be clear about this: The source of the recommendation is the inquiry and chief justice, and you have that recommendation and all legislators have the recommendation. And the caveat on it was if there had not been a code of ethical conduct implemented by a certain date, and that code of ethical conduct was agreed to by all political parties by a given date–I am not arguing against it, Mr. Lamoureux.

I am simply saying that it's a recommendation coming from a commission of inquiry, and so a recommendation to proceed with it could come from some–from any direction. We took the leadership role to pull together such a code, together with the political parties. I mean, it's not–it's to their credit, not ours, but we provided the forum that people could get together and develop the code of ethical conduct, which is on the Web site and available to all. What future recomme ndation may come from Elections Manitoba? I can't say. I won't be making those. Mr.

Lamoureux: My understanding was, is that once this report came public, Elections Manitoba supported that recommendation. The leaders of all political parties supported that recommendation, and the recommendation is very clear. Of financial affairs, accounts of any–make sure I get the right one here–and I quote: and prepare a code of ethics as outlined therein as well as a mechanism whereby such code or the provisions thereof be strictly adhered to.

There is clearly a hug e gap between what's happening in Manitoba and what it is that the Monnin inquiry was recommending, at which–at what point in time back then Elections Manitoba and all political leaders endorsed, and for whatever reason–and I don't understand it, but for whatever reason–that has not been followed through. Yet every entity supported the need to see legislation. So why have we not seen the legislation? We have had allegations of inappropriate financial contributions being made.

We've had allegations of the New Democratic Party attempting to steal–and I'll use the word "steal"–money through an election or– [interjection]–I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Order. Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux: I realize they're sensitive on it. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please, Mr. Lamoureux. One moment, please. I think most members know that the use of that particular language that you've indicated a few moments ago is unparliamentary and I would ask you to withdraw those comments, please. Mr. Lamoureux: I withdraw those comments, Mr. Chairperson.

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux, you may proceed. Mr. Lamoureux: But, over and above that, we've had individuals that I've seen affidavits from that have said that they've been intimidated, that they've been bullied, and I'm supposed to tell people, the public, not to worry, there's a code of ethics. A code of ethics that's a complete wash.

Yet we were instructed, back in 1999, to–if we're not prepared to adopt one, then there should be one made mandatory by legislation, and I would have thought that the biggest champion of that sort of reform would've been coming from, not an MLA, but rather it should be coming from Elections Manitoba as an independent agency who played a critical role in the whole Monnin inquiry. Most MLAs that are here today weren't around in the mid-'90s. Elections Manitoba was, and I think that if we had a code of ethics that had some real teeth to it, we probably wouldn't be in the situation that we are today.

Instead, we'd be asking questions like Ms. Brick and other members had asked for. But because of the very seriousness of why it is things are happening the way that they are because there is no code of ethics–it's a complete wash–that we find ourselves in an awkward predicament. Now we're waiting for the Premier (Mr. Selinger) to do the right thing and call an inquiry on the issue. What role does Elections Manitoba have in terms of advocating for a code of ethics which was mandated by the Monnin inquiry? Mr.

Balasko: Thank you for the time to respond to the question and I know this has been a concern of yours continually. I don't think it can be said that Elections Manitoba has not played a role or taken seriously the notion of a code of ethical conduct and, in fairness, I don't think that's what you're saying, because we're sort of there at the beginning to do that. You know, as well, the process that we use to develop recommendations, and so we're certainly not all things to all people, and we don't have a mandate to regulate ethical conduct.

We have a mandate to regulate statutory conduct, that conduct that's regulated by law, and determine whether or not the law's been broken, and that's a mandate that we no longer have since 2006. But I know that you'll also know, because you participated in a number of these meetings, that we meet with the political party advisory committees, and one is–they're both by statute now, by way of our recommendations, but at one time only the one on campaign finance was statutory, the one on elections was not statutory.

But, nevertheless, we convened one and invited all the political parties to come and discuss things and, at those meetings–and the reason I'm refreshing us on this is that that's the genesis of the recommendations. Elections Manitoba goes to the advisory committee, they bring forward various ideas, get feedback, and then the recommendations are those of the CEO at the end of the day. So there's various opportunities to bring forward the recommendation you're talking about. I think Elections Manitoba has played a role.

It's certainly open for discussion at the advisory committees in terms of future recommendations of Elections Manitoba, but I can't, you know, commit the next chief electoral officer to that. But that's been our role, and we have a clear mandate which is on–which was on investigations of prosecutions to '06. * (20:00) Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chair, what I'll do is provide this letter to the page, and the page can make photocopies of it, and if members really want it tabled, I'm prepared to table it, but I would suggest that maybe we not table it but all members here will have a copy of the letter, after I read a specific quote. This is actually a letter that was sent to me by Mr. Green and it's in reference to the second issue, with respect to what was happening in Wellington. And it–and again, I'm going to read from the third paragraph. It states: Your letter refers to a potential violation of the Elections Manitoba's code of ethics.

I would point out that the code of ethics to which you refer is not, quote, Elections Manitoba's but rather is a code which has been adopted by major political parties. More significantly, however, is the fact that there does not appear to be any jurisdiction in my office to investigate the matters being complained of. Now, I received a copy of this letter. I never did get anything on the first issue. And, in my mind, this says nothing in terms of saying that appropriate or inappropriate behaviour. It seems to be just kind of passing it on to the political parties. And I would suggest, Mr.

Balasko, that one of the things that is absolutely critical to the process of trying to improve our system, is to follow up and follow through on the recommendations from the Monnin inquiry. I don't believe, because I've asked, I've demanded, I've begged, you name it, for a shred of evidence showing something that would have

March 10, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 clearly demonstrated that behaviour, inappropriate behaviour, was not conducted within the Premier's office in relation to the nominations. Never have received anything. Never have had a comment from someone saying that, no, there never was inappropriate behaviour. There is–if I raise the issue, I can't bring it to the New Democratic Party; I know they're not going to do anything with it. They're not going to deal with these financial situations.

There does need to be more independence and I'm going to close my comments by making the suggestion, unless, of course, there's more time at the end, I close my comments by making the suggestion that we do need to have a province-wide code of ethics and conduct and it should be applied to all political entities and there n eeds to be some form of enforcement. And I would suggest that we move on that and I hope that Elections Manitoba will. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Before I proceed to Mr. Balasko's answer, Mr.

Lamoureux, since you've quoted from the document, we'll have to include that as a tabled document, where copies are being made for the–for all members of this particular committee. Mr. Balasko, with your response, sir. Mr. Balasko: No response. Mr. Chairperson: No response. Okay.

I'm just wondering, if–I have a number of members of the committee who wish to ask questions and we're, hypothetically–I know we're not supposed to use that term, but, at the halfway point of this particular committee sitting this evening, not knowing what the will of the committee members are, with respect to the sitting time, but I'm wondering if members would consider a recess at this point for 10 minutes? [Agreed] Agreed, we'll recess for 10 minutes. The committee recessed at 8:03 p.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 8:19 p.m. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Will the committee–we'll return to questions from committee members. The floor is now open for questions, and I believe Mr. McFadyen is the next one on my list to ask questions. * (20:20) Mr. McFadyen: It's just a–it's a question of law in terms of the act, Mr. Balasko, and the question is a simple one. It doesn't require any reflection on situations, either real or hypothetical, but a question of law. Is it an obligation under the act to issue receipts for every dollar of a provincial donation that comes in? Mr. Balasko: Yes, thank you for the question.

There's a requirement of the finances act to issue receipts–I believe it might be for contributions over $10, or is it– An Honourable Member: It is $10. That's right. Mr. Balasko: –for provincial contributions. Mr. McFadyen: And so, well, I think that's clear that there's an obligation to issue a receipt, and the receipt has to be in the amount of the contribution. Is that right, or can the receipt be issued for amount different than the amount of the contribution? Mr. Balasko: The amount of the receipt would be in the amount of the provincial contribution. Mr.

McFadyen: Just moving on to another, just another issue that aros e in Mr. Asselstine's correspondence. He–and this is correspondence to Mr. Graham, and I refer again to a letter that has been circulated, the letter dated April 4th, 2005, and– sorry. That's–just bear with me for a second. There are a couple of different letters. Okay. My question actually relates to a separate piece of correspondence dated June 23rd, 2003, addressed to Mr. Graham from Hamilton and Asselstine, and in that letter Mr.

Asselstine says, and I quote, on the second page, I further understand that you both concur that the complaint filed against my conduct in the Hindle interview was contrived and was part of an attempt to disrupt if not obstruct the investigation. I wonder if you can just react to that comment made by Mr. Asselstine that in the course of the–in the course of his interviews and his investigations there was agreement between your office and him that the NDP's complaint was an attempt to disrupt if not obstruct the investigation. Mr.

Chairperson: Before I recognize the honourable member, just to remind honourable members when they are quoting from particular private letters or other private documents that the member should, for the benefit of committee members, table those particular documents, and if

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2010 you have that we would be pleased to circulate it to committee members. Mr. McFadyen: I've provided our copy of the letter to the Clerk, and he could make copies and circulate that letter. Just picking up on Mr.– An Honourable Member: Point of order. Point of Order Mr. Swan: If Mr. McFadyen is going to put the question to Mr. Balasko, which he's able to, I think it would be fair to let Mr. Balasko have the letter in front of him before the question is asked. So, perhaps we can just wait until we have

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-4-la3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 4th hansardpdf la3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	190e6c7830ef93ee57beb705058b9f3eede2f9a5

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).