Manitoba Committee Hansard — Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 3 (37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-pe3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Th irty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Chairperson Mr. Conrad Santos Constituency of Wellington Vol. L No. 3 - 4 p.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2000 ISSN 0713-9543

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARREIT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LA THLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU. Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH. Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE. Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn. Hon.

MITCHELSON. Bonnie NEV AKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA. Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG. Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS. Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fon Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauphin- Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P N.D P P.C. N.D.P. P.C P.C. P.C P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P

103 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Tuesday, August 8, 2000 TIME-4p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Conrad Santos (Wellington) VICE-CHAIRPERSON Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere) ATTENDANCE - 11- QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Ashton, Hon. Mr. Doer. Messrs. Loewen, Maloway, Martindale, Mrs. Mitchelson, Messrs. Nevakshonoff, Penner (Emerson), Reimer, Santos, Schelle nberg APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, MLA for St.

Norbert MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 4- The Elections Finances Amendment Act *** Mr. Cha irperson: Good afternoon. Will the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections please come to order. This afternoon the Committee will be commencing cla use-by cla use consideration of Bill 4, The Elections Finances Amendment Act. Does the Committee wish to indicate how late it is wishing to sit this afternoon? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): A couple of opening comments.

I belie ve we agreed to a six o'clock time today based on the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that we take some time to reflect on some of the presentations made at the Committee. I just want to indicate to the Committee that we are proposing, just by way of advance information, three substantive amendments that we believe are consistent with the principles of the Bill but will help provide cla rity. One is to make it clea r that third-party advertising does not include a communication for purposes of public policy or advancing the aims of a group, et cetera.

We have a second amendment which we talked about la st week on an advisory committee that would consist of members of the political parties that are named in the Act alr eady with the Chief Ele ctoral Officer and with members representing media associations of Manitoba. A third amendment to give this advisory committee some ability to deal with this issue is that we will not have this

section of the Act take pla ce by January I, 2001. It will come into force on a date fixed by proclamation. Having said that, it is not imperative that it be January I, 200I, for these sections of the Act because of the fact that the restrictions or the limitations only take place in the period of a writ and do not take pla ce in the period of a non-election period. So those are just, by way of information to the Committee, areas that we propose to amend in legisla tion. But we are certainly prepared to go clause by cl ause. Mr.

Cha irperson: Is it agreed that this com mittee will hopefully complete its work not la ter than 6 p.m.? [Agreed] Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Chairperson, we did indicate that we would only sit till six o'cl ock

10 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 tonight. I think that is in consideration for the Premier and his commitments this week. I would like to have some cla rification around the amendment, though, and exactly what

section of the Act this pertains to. Is the Premier indicating that financial lim its will not be set in advance of the Committee having discussio ns and coming to some sort of agreement on what the limits might be, or is he just indicating that the lim its that are set out in the legisla tion will be the lim its but the Committee will have the ability to determine some parameters around those? Mr. Doer: The limits are based on the research we had on third party and its rela tionship to pol itical parties and what they can spend in an election campaign. They will not change.

The issue of the guidelines for what is allo wed for third party, that will not be proclaimed. The advisory committee can work with the political parties and the media representatives on those. It would be an advisory committee because the Chief Elec toral Officer still remains the person that is independent of the Act to determine what is inside the guideline and what is out. We are also pla nning on amending and deleting the old

section (

b) under

Definitions and putting in-it includes what we have got already but adding a section. I will just read it out: A communication made for the purpose of gaining support on an issue does not include the foll owing: "A communication made for the purpose of gaining support on an issue of public policy or for advancing the aims of a group that is not a partisan political group, if the communication does not promote or oppose a particular registered political party or the election of a particular candidate." So that cla rified some of the concerns raised by members on the Committee, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), and others. Sections (

b) and (

c) of the amendment is the same as the existing definition as proposed. So we would have cla rity on the definition, which our

interpretation is that all the third-party ads in '99 and '95 would be allowed: Vote for the party of lower taxes, for exa mple. Health care ads, education ads would not be limi ted. There are no ads lim ited outside of the election period, and there would be an advisory committee. You know, we have perhaps two years at least till the next ele ction, so that group could work with the Chief El ectoral Officer and include political parties and the broadcasters who had some concerns on the

interpretation of these sections, which, we believe, were tightened up. * (16 :10 ) We would not proclaim it until that advisory committee has at least had a chance to meet with the political parties, this

section of the Act. The rest of the Act dealing with banning union and corporations' donations comes into eff ect January 1. 2001. But this

section of the Act dealing with li miting third parties, it is not necessary to come in right away in the sense that I promise you I am not calling an election, unless there is something really, really important to do so. But I do not expect CF -18 or anything else that would necessitate a Manitoba voice and an ele ction at this early date, but I am not putting that in writing. I am just giving that to the Committee. So the proclamation would deal with the advisory committee. The advisory committee could meet with the political parties and the media, and it would not be proclaimed. The

section dealing with the third-party limits would not be proclaimed. The third-party lim its, we have a legal opinion that the concerns raised there have been two issues: One is the whole principle of lim itations, and that issue has not changed. The second issue that has been raised is the cla rity for purposes of what is a political ad and what is not. You know, you get the example of the taxpayers association. We do not consider that an ad that would be subject to limits, but we wanted to make sure it was cl earer in its language. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Chair, just for clarification, are you saying all of

section 55? Mr. Doer: Yes. Right now the Act takes eff ect under the

section on effective dates in January 1, 2001. This

section would not come into eff ect, the 55 section, until proclamation. It would be our goal in government to have the Chief

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10 5 El ectoral Officer and the advisory committee meet and discuss these guidelines prior to any proclama tion. Mr. Loewen: But your comments do not apply to

section 54? Mr. Doer: I will just make sure. I will check. No. Let me make sure. Okay, I apologize. I will read out the draft amendment. It starts from

section 25 of the Bill, which is

section 55 of 55. 1 to 55 .12 . Mr. Cha irperson: If there is agreement from the Committee, the Chair will call cla uses in blocks that conform to pages with the understanding that we will stop at any particular cla use or cla uses where members may have comments, questions, or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have several questions of a general nature that might apply to different cla uses, and I think we would lik e to be able to ask those questions up-front and then maybe look at going cl ause by clause.

I am not prepared to sort of rush through cla use by cla use and miss a question in a certain area, so if there is willin gness maybe we could just ask general questions before we start going cla use by cla use on the legisla tion. Mr. Cha irperson: Is there an opening statement from the Premier? Mr. Doer: No.

I have made my statement indicating where we think that, based on the committee hearings, we should make some proposed changes and the timing on the third party issue so that there can be some adequate discussion of that among the pol itical parties and the media and the Chief Elec toral Officer, so everything can be dealt with ahead of time. Mr. Cha irperson: We thank the First Minister. Does the Official Opposition have an opening statement? Mrs. Mitchelson: I wanted to indicate at the outset that we certainly are not pleased with this kind of legisla tion that is so significant around election financing.

It has been unila terally introduced without any input from any of the pol itical parties other than the governing party, and I might say, given the presentations and the number of groups that came out and spoke against this legisla tion, without any consultation or consideration by this government to anyone that might be impacted or affected. We see some amendments now being put forward, but I am not sure that they go nearly far enough to address a lot of the concerns or the issues.

I lis tened carefully to the Premier's answers in Question Period today, and he talked about levelling the playing field, and because poli tical parties had lim its pla ced on them during a writ period it was not unfair to put lim itations on third parties. He talked about that being a fairness and balance. It is interesting to see that he is prepared to at le ast have some discussion and dial ogue around how that might be implem ented and what the

definitions or the guidelines might be. That is a small step in the right direction, but I also li stened to his answer and wondered where the fairness and balance was when third parties are not lim ited outside of a writ period but political parties are. I would like to ask a few direct questions of the Premier. When he has the figure of $5 0,000 for pol itical parties outside of the writ period in any given year for communication or advertising expenses, I wonder how he arrived at that figure or that number.

Is it something that is in pla ce in any other province across the country, or what was the rationale or the justification behind the $50, 000? Mr. Doer: Yes. It is in pla ce in other provinces. Two of them that I know of are Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. The amount of money, as we understand it, is in between both those provincial lim itations. Mrs. Mitchelson: So the Premier is telling me that the $50,0 00 number is in place in Saskatchewan and in New Brunswick? Mr. Doer: No. To the general question: Are there lim itations between elections and other jurisdictions?

Yes, par ticularly Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. As I recall it, Saskatchewan is higher, and New Brunswick is lower, than this lim it.

10 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes. Could the Premier indi cate what those numbers are in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan? Mr. Doer: I am going by memory and I can confirm these, but I belie ve that New Brunswick is $35 ,000 and Saskatchewan is $1 00,000, but I will double-check those numbers. It is in those ranges. Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I would ask the Premier then on how he arrived at the $50,000 number. What was his rationale or thinking behind $50,000? Mr.

Doer: It was an amount of money that I thought was reasonable and would be defendable in terms of allowable expenses. It also fits with something that is different than other provinces in the sense that we have a banning of union and corporate donations to political parties, which will perhaps be a restriction to some poli tical parties. It will be one to ours, I know that. I suspect it will mean more work with individuals. So it was the amount of money arrived at consistent with the principle of the Bill and proposed as $50 ,000. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) is telling me, because I think he used the word "1," it was the number that he arrived at. So it was his decision alone without any consultation with anyone else around that figure. Mr. Doer: No, I had the advice about what happened in other provinces. I will get the specific numbers. I proceeded with an election promise that I did make in the election campaign. It was an amount of money that I thought was a defendable public figure. If you look at the history of the last 10 years, think there has been political advertising in Manitoba outside of an election period.

I think the Liberal Party had a newspaper ad and a survey result. We had some bill boards and the Conservative Party had an ad campaign. But I think, general ly speaking, political parties in the '90s in Manitoba have not engaged in massive advertising in between election campaigns. We have relied on the level playing field rules in the campaign general ly as a principle in this province. * (16: 20) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am reading directly from the news release that was sent out during the election campaign.

I do not see anything in the news release that indicates that there were going to be limits on political parties regarding advertising or communication between elections. I will read the three points that were articulated in the news release.

It said: Reforming The Ele ctions Finances Act to ban all donations from corporate, union and other organization sources; lim iting contributions to solely those given by individuals; establishing an upper dolla r limi t on donations to political parties by individuals; and li mit third-party spending during campaigns to reduce special interest influence as recommended by Elections Manitoba but not accepted by the Filmon Conservatives. It goes on to say this is one of the areas where we have some disagreement.

So the Premier is saying one thing today in committee when he said something different during the election campaign. He is going back to that election promise for his justification for the changes that he has made. It also goes on in that news release that he indicates he was ele cted on: He committed to work with other parties in the Legisla ture in a co-operative way to fully impl ement these reforms. So we have him saying one thing now when he said another thing before he was elected.

I guess I would like to ask him if he might like to review his news release and show us where he was ele cted on li miting political party spending in non-writ periods. Mr. Doer: I think the members opposite were not ele cted in '95 to amend the election advertising law to deal with an ambiguity from the '95 election to allow for unlim ited advertising in the subsequent '99 election under the cap. which was inconsistent with the

interpretation and the understanding of the former act. So members opposite have made decisions that they feel are in the best interests of democracy. We have made some decisions that we think are in the best interests of a level playing field, and they are before this legisla tive committee. We used the term level playing field, and if we look at some jurisdictions now, the

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10 7 amount of resources available to them to advertise outside of the writ period is, again, a loophole, we believe, in the law, because if we provide for a limit inside an election campaign, surely if we are talking about a level pla ying field, democracy should be on the basis of people and ideas and other forms of discussion, not on the basis of who has the biggest wallet. That is consistent with the whole act that we are passing or proposing to pass. Mrs.

Mitchelson: The Premier is using justification, and I heard it in his comments a little earlier , that this is what he said before the election campaign. Will he now say that this is not what he said during the election campaign, but that he is doing something completely different than what he committed to during the ele ction campaign? I have heard him put on the record many times: This is what we said we would do. It is not what he said he would do during the ele ction campaign. Mr.

Doer: If you look at my comments over the years about level playing fields and advertising, and I think if you look at our comments in opposition when the members opposite were making a unila teral change in the laws, you will see a consistency in our comments about a level pla ying field. We think pol itical parties should compete with ideas and people and activity and not on the basis of the size of their wallet. That is very consistent with the Act that is here, and I think, if you look at the election promise, it talks about a level pla ying field, and we are doing everything possible.

We are not afraid to fight an ele ction campaign with members in the Legisla ture on the basis of a consistent pla ying field, and I think that that is what we are proposing. Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I might just ask a few questions around what the definition for the guidelines around the $50,000 spending limit will be. What is defined in the legisla tion as political advertising? I do not know whether the

definitions are here and are cle ar or whether I just have not seen them, but if the Premier could explain to me what the guidelines will be. Mr. Doer: The same as the existing law. There are

definitions dealing with advertising within an election campaign, and it is exactly the same outside of an election campaign- consistent

definitions. Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to get at a couple of specifics, because I need to try to get an understanding. As the Premier knows, we will soon be electing a new leader. Some Honourable Members: Ele cting? Mrs. Mitchelson: Electing. Yes, confirming. We will be going through a process-and members opposite may laugh, but I would not laugh if I were in their shoes considering the process that they had to go through when they were turfed out of of fice when Howard Pawley lost the confidence. Sure you had five.

The people of Manitoba voiced their displea sure with the New Democratic Party at that time, so I would not be bragging about our process if I were members of the government side of the House. I would like to ask a specific question around what might happen if our new leader decided to hold policy conferences and travel about the province in order to present himself to the public in a fashion that might be appropriate for a new lea der of a political party.

Would in fact any notices in the newspaper indicating that he was going to be in a certain community at a certain date or any policy conferences that were advertised throughout the province-wo uld those be considered part of advertising or communi cation that would be lim ited to the $50,000? Mr. Doer: Well, I mean, there is an abil ity of an existing, incumbent MLA to advertise policy discussions that would not be considered, quote, part of the $50,000.

You know, I am informed by reading the media that one of two MLAs are pla nning on stepping down, and the individual that is going to be confirmed in November is pla nning on running in one of those two seats. So certainly if you were to go out to have a meeting on policy as an MLA, as Leader of the Opposition, and I understand you can advertise as an MLA to do that, if he or she is running ads like our bill boards, you know, vote, that would definitely be I think-end hallw ay medicine, vote NDP, that is a partisan ad, and it would be lim ited to $50,000. I think the members of the

10 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Liberal Party ran an ad, you know, with a picture of the Leader and a survey result, which I think were paid for by the Liberal Party and legiti mately would be inside of that. I think you have had a few ads in June of 19 99 that might be considered partisan, ads in the '99 run-up to the ele ction campaign. There would be a reasonable limit. So we would all be competing on an equal basis. Mrs.

Mitchelson: But I guess again you are saying that if I, as an MLA, went out and held policy conferences and advertised them, I would be within my right as an ele cted member of the Legisla ture to do that. But any other person that might be challenging an incumbent MLA or that would not be an MLA, including a Leader of a party that was not in the Legisla ture, they would be considered to be-a political party would have to use a part of that $50, 000 budget in order for that to occur? Mr. Doer: Yes, I think the same rule would apply to me.

You know, come to an NDP policy meeting to discuss the future NDP pl atform for the next NDP campaign. That would be partisan and would not be allo wed under the Legislative Assembly Management Commission rules and would have to be within the $50,000. I guess the answer to your question is nothing is changing in the

definitions from where, you know, we are lim ited now in the campaign. We were lim ited in the past. We have limits in the past, and the

definitions are applicable. We are not rewriting the book: we are just putting in a limit to make it a level playing field. * (1 6:30 ) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I guess my question would be: Who is going to monitor the activities? Where is that monitoring function going to be loc ated? Who will undertake that? Because I sense that there may be a lot of things happening out there that could-1 am not sure there are any guidelines, but who will be monitoring and who will be making a determination on what is legit and what is not? Mr.

Doer: Well, I would suggest that the political parties would be, like they have in the past consulting with the Chief El ectoral Officer. There is a regular party committee that meets on the Act and the changes in the Act and the

interpretation of the Act. They met before the last '99 changes, they met after the '99 changes, and I think they meet regularly with the Chief Elec toral Officer during election campaigns. I really believe that the

interpretation of these acts starts from the political parties themselves. I think that they are then deter mined. any kind of determination would be made by the Chief Elec toral Officer, or if it is behaviour way beyond the pale, you know, it would be potentially-potential breaches of this act can go to criminal referral .

To give you an example, if somebody in an advertising campaign released a record of an underage person who is protected by the law in terms of the confidentiality, that is a breach of the Criminal Code, I bel ieve, and therefore would be a breach of the Young Offenders Act, and a person who would do that would be subject to criminal offence. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chair, I just would lik e to ask the Premier, if a third party, an individual wanted to run ads outside of the writ period on behalf of a political party, I guess under the guidelines they would have the ability to do that.

My question would be: What if they are a card carrying member of a certain political party, would they still be able to undertake that kind of activity? Mr. Doer: Well, if there is an attempt to subvert the lim itations, I guess I would recommend strongly- I am not going to provide advice to members opposite about how to follow the law, but I really respectfully urge members of the Legisla ture and the leaders of political parties and apparently we have all established ethics committees and whatever-to not find ways to go around the law but find ways to work in the spirit of the law.

So I am not going to give the Member opposite all kinds of advice at this committee about how something can be-the objective is to have a level pla ying field. That is the objective.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 10 9 Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am not asking on behalf of someone in my constituency that might be a card-carry ing Conservative that is looking at circumventing the law. I guess I asked that question in general ities because I think that from time to time those kinds of issues are going to arise. I just look at even an issue in the last election campaign where the United Food and Commercial Workers had a publi cation that came out during the election campaign supporting the NDP, and you know we saw that happen.

I would lik e to ask the Premier if that is one of the things that would be banned, or if it would have to be included as part of the NDP's advertising budget because it is somebody that is advertising on behalf of the New Democratic Party during an election period. It happened in the last election campaign, so I guess I am just looking at these kinds of things.

Is this one of the things that the Chief El ectoral Officer would have to sit down and determine whether in fact-I mean, it seems to make sense to me that if it is something that comes out from a third party during a writ period supporting one political party-and that would be specifically supporting the New Democratic Party in this instance would that have to be included as part of the NDP's advertising budget during the writ period? Mr. Doer: Moving back to the questions posed by the Member opposite, dealing with $50,000. "A registered political party incurs advertising expenses under this

section if the expenses are incurred (

a) by an individual on the party's behalf, with its knowledge and consent, or (

b) by a constituency association, or a candidate of the party." So there is language there to deal with this issue. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I do not think I had my last question answered. The United Food and Commercial Workers, were they breaking the law, then, during the writ period by sending out a publi cation that told their membership to vote for the New Democratic Party, and if in fact they were advertising on behalf of one political party, were the expenses for that publ ication part of the New Democratic Party's election expenses for advertising? I mean, this is a bit of a grey area.

This was one area that I think we had some issues around, and I am not sure that that kind of issue has been addressed in this legislation. Mr. Doer: I think this legisla tion is modelled after the Quebec legisla tion in terms of the banning of union and corporate donations, the donations in kind in terms of staff and other resources. The rules have changed. The UFCW used to donate money directly to the NDP. So, yes, the laws have changed with this proposed legisla tion. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Just seeking cla rification on a couple of points which are general .

One is that in preparation for an election one often has in individual ridings nomination fights. In those nomination fights, you may be doing some advertising, or candidates may be doing some advertising. As regards that sort of advertising which is on behalf of people who are seeking the nomination to become a candidate, where does it fall here? Would that fall under the $5 0,000 limit? Mr. Doer: I do not bel ieve we have dealt with people seeking a nomination. or I certainly know we have not dealt with leadership candidates rules for candidates in a leadership race.

I do not belie ve we have dealt with nomination races either. We have not restricted that. Mr. Gerrard: It would, at the very least, seem to me rather important to cl ear that up because if the nominations, for example, fell within the $50,000 limit and you have 57 constituencies and suppose they were all contested, then at spending $250 for each candidate you have already spent in the range of $25,000 to $35. 000. I think that it would be important to have some understanding of whether or not that is going to be included and whether some expenses are and some will not or what. Mr.

Doer: They are not inclu ded, nor are there rules on leadership races either. Mr. Gerrard: On leadership races, what you are saying is that the spending li mits for candidates for leadership races are unlim ited? * (16 :40) Mr. Doer: There is a recommendation from the Chief El ectoral Officer to look at the rules on

11 0 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 discl osure and the rules of leadership races, who funds the leadership candidates, how the public will know about that. I thought that, given the fact that it was changing the rules in midstream for one political party, that would have been unfair. I think changing the rules for the next election for all political par ties is fair, but the Chief Elec toral Officer has recommended in previous reports, including the reports that were discussed at the standing committee two weeks, three weeks ago, that this legis lative body deal with that matter.

We are certainly open to dealing with that, but we did not think it would be appropriate to deal with it, with the Conservatives having already embarked on a leadership race. Mr. Gerrard: So that your pla n would be what in terms of dealing with that? Mr. Doer: I am open to how best we can deal with that. I do not know when the next leadership race is going to be, but if members opposite would li ke to-the Chief El ectoral Officer has raised that as an issue.

I am sure it is going to be an issue that is going to be-l am not sure, but I do not know what is in his '99 report, but it is an issue that definitely has not been dealt with in past reports. It is not dealt with in this legislation one way or the other, and I feel it is an outstanding recommendation to this Legisla ture that we should deal with down the road. It would not be fair, for exa mple, if a person thought that their donation to Mr. Praznik or somebody else was not discl osable and then all of a sudden we change the rules to make it require discl osure. That would be unfair in my view.

That was a judgment, and I hate to use the words "I made," but it is a judgment we made when we proposed this legislation. I am personal ly in favour of full discl osure on leadership contributions. In our own political party, we have lim itations on leadership races by rules. Does the Legisl ature have the right to limi t the internal workings of another political party? I think, as a minimum, the public has a right to know who finances leadership candidates. I do not know whether the Legisla ture can go too far in the internal workings of political parties.

It can go a distance to dealing with the rules under which we all engage each other, but going into the internal workings of a political party, save the Monnin recommendation that all parties develop an ethics code of conduct, which I am sure we have all done, I think that it is an interesting debatable point. I am open to advice. If people want to discuss limi ts for leadership candidates and disclo sure, we are will ing to do that in a time frame that is reasonable. Mr.

Gerrard: Given that this legislation will not come into effect until after the Conservatives' leadership convention is com ple ted, I mean it would be well within the realm of the possible to deal with that now through an all-pa rty committee before this legisla tion is passed, would it not? Mr. Doer: Yes, but I can assure the Member that this is compli cated stuff and it has lots of constitutional-! mean I am certainly willin g to meet on this, particularly the issue of discl osure.

I think all pol itical parties would want to consult their own political parties about whether there should be limi ts internally in the leadership races in the future, but certainly the issue of discl osure, I think, is an important public policy issue. The more discl osure you have in a democracy, the more transparency there is and the more accountabil ity there is. Personally, I feel that is al l positive. Mr.

Gerrard: The other area I want to ask about is when we have an election which starts on a particular day, and it is not as if things stop and start on a dime, as it were, very frequently newspapers have got ads set, radio stations, televisions, magazines maybe with a longer time frame, and so on, how will advertising, as it were, material coming out from the union may have been sent just before the election, how would you deal with a cut-off for when the election starts, given that only perhaps the Premier will know in advance precisely when that is going to be? Mr.

Doer: Generally speaking, I have to say there have not been too many secrets on many elections in the last number of years except the one election in '88 that I can recal l. It was pretty knowledgeable to all of us that the members opposite were either going to call the election a couple of days after the Budget in the spring of 19 99 or after the Pan Am Games. I think that

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 there is a certain predictabil ity within the normal democratic rules of customs over three and a half years and under five. Again, it is not up to the le ader of a party to interpret those rules. You know, you are going to get editorials right to the day of the election supporting one candidate or another. They are not covered under these rules of advertising.

If there is an advertising campaign within the $50,000 at a time that all of a sudden is within the writ period, and say you have spent $35,000 of that campaign and you have $15,000 left, I am sure it would go against your limi t after the writ was issued in terms of political par ties' contents. So I do not see that as a major problem. Instead of having a limit of $750,000 or $900,000, you would have a limi t of $15,000 less.

Just speaking in terms of our own party, and if I was in opposition as opposed to having some knowledge of when the next election would be called, save what happens in the Legisla ture which is an unpredictable pla ce, I do not think that is a very difficult problem to manage. Mr. Gerrard: I would see it as less of a problem perhaps for political parties than for third parties.

I mean, the third party, as has been pointed out. which might want to put an ad in the Free Press or a province-wide ad in some fashion or an ad in a magazine, it is quite easy to be caught in a position for a third party where they have spent more than $5,000 and all of a sudden the election is sprung and the material is out in the mail. In rural areas it may not get there for a week or so. There are some real important complic ating factors here.

I think that they are particularly relevant for third parties where they are trying to reach people around the province and could not possibly do so with the $5,000, within election allowable spending limi ts but are trying to do it immediately before an election and get caught. What happens? Mr. Doer: The Chief El ectoral Officer would have the wisdom of Solomon to deal with it. I mean, if it was obviously a kind of delibe rate way to get around the rules, I would not want to be on the other side of that report.

If a political party is trying to use the rules to subvert the principle of a level playing field, I think it is going to be pretty obvious to people that are more experienced in adjudicating these matters than I am and more qualified and are independent. Mr. Gerrard: It would seem to me that it would be smart to write the legislation so that the Chief Elec toral Officer, although he may have the wisdom of Solo mon, does not have to be forced to use it in very tricky circumstances. * (16:50) Mr. Doer: I am not suggesting he is going to promote dividing the baby, but I have alwa ys found the

interpretations to be- An Honourable Member: Wit can be dangerous, you know. Mr. Doer: Well, I think all of us are the ones-if we know the spirit of the Act, we work accordingly. We can fight the campaign on policies, people, ideas and vigorous effort. All of us are pretty dam good at going to the doorstep. That is where the election should be won or lost, but advertising is part of it. so let us just do it in a level way. Mr. Marcel Laur endeau (St. Norbert): I only have one question. I think it is just one question.

My question is: Now that we are changing the laws that the unions can coll ect some of those union dues for pol itical purposes again, will the union be allowed to make that donation in the name of the employee at the end of the year to the amount of monies raised for political ·� purposes, and what is it that blocks it? Mr. Doer: As I understand it, the law is very specific, and it is the same for corporations as well that you cannot give a person, say a board director, a bonus for the purposes of donating it or donating it yourself to a political party on their behalf, and it is the same for a union member. Mr.

Laurendeau: But we are seeing that it is okay within the labour law now to coll ect money from the employees for political purposes. What prevents the union from donating it on behalf of the employee? Which

section of this act prevents that from happening, the union contributing it in the name of the employee? It was the employee's

11 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 name. It was raised for political purposes. What prevents the union from donating it to a political party? Mr. Doer: Well, the existing law. Remember, when the announcement was made about union and corporate donations, the existing election law prohibits you from giving money to somebody else for the purposes of getting around the disclo sure act and getting around the provisions of the Act. Not this-the existing law, and I remember hearing the comments from the co-chair of the campaign committee saying people will just get around it.

Well, you cannot in Quebec or here, you cannot get around it. It is in the current act: 41 (I), (2). [interjection] Well, it is also in the existing act. Mr. Laurendeau: That is exactly the problem I am having. When you look at that

section 41 (I), (2). It says: No individual "shall contribute to any candidate, constituency association or registered political party." Then it goes into the (

a) and (b), and the (

b) clearly states "any money, goods or services that have been given or furnished" to the individual "by any other person or organization for the purpose of making the contribution." But it would not prevent that group from making it in the name of the other person, because that was exactly what it was raised for. If that person is raising that money specifically for a political purpose. what prevents them from putting it in his name? If John Doe is the one that is being given that money, it is li ke going into a holding account. I do not see that closing it out or preventing it from happening. Mr.

Doer: The union cannot make a donation, and it cannot use an intermediary to do so. A corporation cannot do that as well, through a director, through an honorarium. The

section dealing with the labour code was changed, deal ing not with partisan donations to political parties but real ly dealing with-and as I understood it, there was a consensus at the Labour Management Review Committee on that issue. If the Steel Workers had an ad campaign on health and safety flowing from the Flin Flon incident or some other incident that has taken pla ce in some of the mines before, is that political, because it is asking for health and safety vigilance, or is it partisan?

The unions cannot use an intermediary to get around the law to donate money to a political party; neither can corporations. Mr. Loewen: Just on that point, and I think it bears further investigation, because nothing in the Act that I see would prevent somebody from, say, through a payroll deduction, colle cting money over the course of the year and then having that contribution registered to a political party in the individual's name whom the money was col lected from. So I think it is a nuance there which I belie ve is quite likely allowable because it is the individual's money.

It is just being colle cted in pieces as opposed to in one lump sum. Anyway, I think that is something that should- Mr. Doer: Just on that. I asked this question too, because I said the opposition would quite rightly want to know. and I would want to know, because we had heard rumours about Quebec and the board members of some companies getting money as honorariums for the purposes of donating it at that point to the Liberal Party, Quebec, or conversely in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois.

The wording is "no contribution through intermediaries," and so both in discussing this with legal counsel and with experts on this matter. it was a question I asked, you are asking it. and I think it is appropriate you ask it. So did the Opposition House Leader. It is both in the existing act in terms of the consoli dation act of '99. It is one of the issues that was raised in the original Monnin inquiry in terms of money being passed around and et cetera. It is very specific. No money is supposed to go through intermediaries and through either a person or organization.

There can be debates about what is and is not partisan, some of the issues on third party. But on this thing I have been told it is legally bulle tproof. Mr. Loewen: I can appreciate that. I just want to make sure that the Premier is aware that I am not talking about a situation where someone gives somebody some money or gives them a payment, and then collects it back. I am talking about a situation where somebody, of their own free will, decides that they will say something. It is common in the business to deduct something from your paycheque every month and pass it on.

I do not think the legisla tion excludes that.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 3 Again, this is their own money of their own free volition. It is not money that is given to them to give back. They are doing it in a piecemeal basis. I just think it is something that bears looking into. * (1 7:00) My major concerns are quite different. Certainly I appreciate the attempt that is being made, maybe, to clarify some of this bill. My own belief is that even with the amendments that are being proposed, and in some cases as a result of the amendments that are being proposed, this bill is so fundamentally flawed that we ought not to be rushing it through. I do not understand how we can ask a committee to look at

section 25, cla uses 55 without looking at sections 23 and 24 that deal with amendments to

section 54, at the same time. It seems to me that the two of them are so inextricably li nked that to ask a committee to just look at one without giving them the mandate and the authority to make recom mendations on both is fundamentally flawed. Even if that was the case, my point would be that really this legisla tion does not match up very well with the election promise. If the Premier was simply interested in li ving up to his election promise, that would be one thing.

If it was the primary intention to ban donations from corporate unions and other organizations, then I would suggest it would be a lot better off if we looked at a bill that did that. That is not as complex or far-reaching as this bill, which does a lot more than that. Again, you can look at it in many, many situations. But certainly

section 2, subsection (3) where it talks about services provided by individuals, and has to distinguish for self employed individuals who normal ly charge for their services, I mean, the wording is fundamentally flawed to the point where it is a different

interpretation for somebody who works in a corporation or works for an hourly wage as opposed to an individual who is out in business on their own. I just do not understand how somebody who is in a business like that-it could apply to commission salesmen or not-will be able to charge for their time. I also do not understand. Nowhere in the election material is it implied that individuals from outside of Manitoba who have an interest in Manitoba and an interest in bettering Manitoba would be restricted from making a donation. In the finest

interpretation of that, certainly if an individual who is run ning for office had a parent who retired to Victoria or someone else in the family who had moved out of province for work reasons, I would exclude those people who may intend to come back to Manitoba from giving a small vote of support for somebody seeking elected office. I do not understand what progress we are making by including that type of cl ause in this legislation. There is also, as referred at this committee, concerns with how some of the money is going to be accounted for, that might go into a contested nominating procedure.

I think the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) raised some very valid concerns in terms of the nomination process. If you have a hotly contested nomination, with three or four candidates, and money spent trying to garner that nomination, what effect will that have? My

interpretation is that would certainly limit what then can be spent on an election campaign. There is definitely concern there, but the amendments that are being talked about do not really speak to the issues that are being brought up or were brought up in committee. They do not speak to some of the fundamental flaws in this legislation, and unless a committee is struck, an all -party committee, and it could inclu de members of the media and the Chief Elec toral Officer who will review the whole bill, I cannot for the life of me believe that a committee that simply is restricted to looking at

section 25 will be able to come up with recommendations that deal with some of the other fundamental flaws in this legislation. On that basis, and the Minister has made reference to it in the House, the Premier has made reference to it, are you for banning political contributions from unions and corporations, or are you not? Wel l, that is not the issue for me in this bill. This bill is far-ranging. It pla ces a number of lim itations on individuals' rights and freedoms. We can have the argument about whether we should be banning corporate or union deduc tions.

The other day the Premier raised in the House that the national party did do that, and they had a fundamental belief that that should be

114 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 done, but the national party also, and this is where it differs from the Premier, from his party, when they received a donation from a union or from a corporation they sent it back. They did not have a fundraising dinner in between the legislation saying it was ille gal. So, if we are talking about something that is a fundamental belief on how the process should be handled, that is one thing. It seems to me that we are doing this more for political expediency than anything else. So, having voiced that, there are lots of questions on the cla use by clause.

I appreciate that the Premier has pressing business with the conference, and we want to get through this bill, but I just want to assure the Premier that this is not an issue for me of should we have union donations and corporate donations versus should we not. There are a lot of fundamental individual rights and freedoms that are being taken, and I think very many of them will be chal lenged and turned down by the court system when they are analyzed, and so again, we were given options during committee to deal with that by getting legal opinions prior to rushing through the passages ofthis bill.

As the Premier has admitted, we are not going to see an election for the next couple of years presumably, given unforeseen situations. but still my question would be: Why would we not refer the whole bill to this committee that he has set up, for a comple te and thorough review, with an opportunity to come back to the House with the concurrence of the Chief El ectoral Officer and maybe the Chief El ectoral Office should be the Chair and have the final say in some of this legisla tion before it is rushed through the House? Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): I want to pursue the lin e of questioning that the Honourable Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) pursued a little while ago. That is, I want to ask the First Minister to read to me the

section that disallows a union to make a deduction from a payroll for the purposes of the individual to make a contribution on behalf of any political party. Mr. Doer: The existing act and the proposed act are similar in the sense of prohibiting the donations through an intermediary for purposes of- Mr. Jack Penner: No, that is not the question I asked. The question I asked is read to me the

section of the Act which prohibits a union from making a deduction with the consent of the individual for the purposes of contributing to a political party as an individual but making the deduction specifically for that purpose. Read to me that

section that specifically spells out that this is not allowed. Mr. Doer: It has to be a donation from an individual. and you could go into-it is 41 (1 )(

a) and (b), and it is both for purposes of corporations and unions, and it is in the existing act. *( 17:10) Mr. Jack Penner: I want to say to the Premier once more: Explain to me which

section of the Act disallows a deduction to be made by a union that the individual would. as an individual, be able to contribute directly to the party of his or her choice. There is nothing in this act that would prevent a union from deducting $3,000 annually, more or less, not more, but less, and contribute that to a political party and make that contribution as being contributed by the individual. There is nothing preventing that in this act. The reason I raise this, Mr.

Premier, is organizations can be very influential on their membership in indicating what should or should not happen and are very influential in encouraging people to make donations in that manner, whether it is to a hospital charity or any other charity or whether that be for the means of contributing to a political party, but there is nothing in this act that I have read that would prevent a union from encouraging a member to allow a deduction to be made from every paycheque that that member then would be deemed to have given to a political party. If there is, I want you to read the

section of the Act that proscribes that, and that is what is wrong with this bill. Mr. Doer: Well, 41(1), no contributions through an intermediary; the union would be the

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 5 intermediary, a corporation would be the intermediary. Mr. Jack Penner: The intermediary would only be there if the union deducted the amount of money and contributed directly as a union to the political party, but there is nothing here preventing the deduction to be made by the organization for the purposes of contributing to a party, not by the organization but by the individual. So I say to you, Mr. Premier, there is a hole here big enough to drive a semitruck through in this bill that would allow that kind of contribution.

It is very easy for organizations, such as a union, to be very influential in encouraging their membership to make those kinds of deductions, whether it is $10 or whether it is $10 0 or $1 ,000 or in fact $3,000. So I say to you that this is a prescription for union donations to a given party of their choice by virtue of encouragement to their membership through this process. Mr. Doer: The payroll is controlled usual ly by the companies. Great-West Life, for example, if you are saying that they are going to have a checkoff system to contribute money to the NDP through their payroll deduction system: (

a) they would be an intermediary; (

b) they would be a contribution, because you would have to have a computer, you would have to have all kinds of other means as an intermediary to have a payroll deduction; and (c), it would be contrary to the Act. The payroll is usually owned by the company and the employer for purposes of payroll deductions. The deductions on a pay slip, for example in the provincial public service, are made by individual decisions, perhaps, but there are no deduction slips or any computer number or allowable computer deduction save what is approved by the employer.

I know that this is covered, and if it was a problem it is actually probably for a corporation doing it, but I do not think they will because they are going to be an intermediary. Unions do not have control of the payroll. If they raised the dues to contribute off the payroll for a pol itical party, it is contrary to the Act. You cannot do it. They would not get it through convention, I daresay, anyway. Having said that, it is contrary to the intermediary section. Mr.

Jack Penner: There is no provision here under clause 41(1) or 41( 1 .1) , where no individual shall make a contribution totalling more than $3,000 a year, and there are no prohibitions for any organization, including a union, to make a deduction by the request of the individual member if that is the way it is deemed to contribute to a pol itical party. There is no provision in this act that would prevent that, and there is no ill egality about that under the terms of this act, unless I am totally inept of assessing what the meaning of this act is, and I do not think I am.

So there is no provision here that would stem that, and all I am saying to you, Mr. Premier, is there are organizations that are more influential in encouraging their members about that kind of activity than others, and this, in my view, would allow for a maximum of $3 ,000 to be donated in that manner of each member. If you have a 90 000-member union that would be a very substantive amount of money that would be available to any given political party that was chosen to be the recipient of that amount of money.

I do not see that kind of provision for any other individual, because as an individual you have not got the abil ity to allow for or encourage or direct the deduction to be made for those purposes. Mr. Doer: The example you use, quite frankly, is almost a fantasy example. The unions do not control the payrolls; the companies do. We do not belie ve that this allows a company to use payroll deductions as an intermediary source for a political party.

I think it is clear that you cannot-and it is under the existing law, because I remember the former member from Arthur Virden saying political parties will just get around this. They cannot. You cannot give money to somebody for the purposes of giving it to a political party. That is already in the law, and we belie ve it is covered off fairly well. Thirdly, unions do not control the payroll fields. It is the emplo yers. An Honourable Member: Not necessarily. Mr. Doer: Let us deal with it. I would bet 99 percent of the payroll fields are controlled by the empl oyers, i.e., the corporations.

There might be a few union staff that actually have a computer,

I 16 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 and that example might be there, but it is the 99 percent of the corporate abuses the Member is talking about we belie ve are covered under intermediaries. We believe that I percent perhaps that might be fantasized to be a potential abuse is also covered under that section. Mr. Jack Penner: Well, I think that the fantasy has been well devised in this document, and I think the prescription for what I have outlined is here in this document, and an all owance for it. Time will tell whether I am correct or not.

I would suspect that I might be more correct than the Honourable First Minister is in this regard, because this is a prescription. This document is a prescription for exac tly the kind of thing that I prescribed, whether it is a union or whether it is another organization with a payroll and/or a corporation for that matter with a payroll that could be exactly in that same position if they chose to, but there are organizations such as unions that have a lot more influence on their membership to encourage those kinds of deductions to be made.

They can be done under the auspices of any kind of charitable organization, but they can be made. You know that and I know that. They are made for charitable purposes on a weekly basis today. I do not see anything in this act for the prevention of that kind of contribution. Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): I have a question, more for cla rification.

It was mentioned earlier that contributions during the nomination meeting do not fall into this, but I have got a bit of a problem in that when I read one of the cla uses, 41 (5), where it says "a contribution is deemed to have been made to a constituency association under this Act if it is made to a person seeking to be nominated as a candidate by that constituency association." As the Premier knows, a lot of times, once the writ is dropped, that is when nominations start.

A lot of nominations start after the writ has been dropped, and if you have a hotly contested nomination meeting where you may have two or three people, and they are each spending upwards of $3 ,000, or $4,000, or maybe even $5,000 apiece just to get the nomination for that riding, the way I interpret this act is that money is then charged towards that association that is then charged against that election expense.

Therefore, the person that has been nominated is suddenly put at a disadvantage because he or she is then going to have that amount of money that was spent by the other two candidates or three candidates seeking nomination charged to that election of that association; therefore, that association is not going to have the full amount of monies to be spent for an election purpose during that election. Am I right or wrong? Mr. Doer: Well, there were two separate different questions. One was dealing with advertising limi ts, and the other one was dealing with contributions.

The contribution sections for nominations have the same limi ts applying to them. For example, you could not have unions contributing to a candidate for a nomination in a nomination race or a corporation. The contri bution limi ts of$3,000 apply, as I understand it. * (1 7:20) Mr. Reimer: Taken that, then, if you have three persons seeking the nomination in that riding, whatever the riding is, three times three is $9.000 has already been spent by that association in their election costs that are all ocated to that constituency.

The person, then, is at a disadvantage because that $9,000 is charged against his or her constituency expenditures. That is the way I read it, and that is the way it seems to be. Mr. Doer: There is a difference between contributions. which are subject to the limi ts and prohibitions, and expenses that would not apply, as I understand it-the contributions would be li mited but not the allo wable limi ts for purposes of that contest. Mr. Reimer: It only leads into the natural progression.

If you are going to get a contribution, you are going to spend it in that nomination meeting, and that money is going to be expended during that nomination meeting, and it is during the writ period itself. I am thinking that that money, the way I read this, is then charged to that association as their election expenses. You have two, or three, or four persons running for the nomination, it is not uncommon to spend $3,0 00 or $4,000 seeking the nomination. You are getting contributions from the general public into your coffers, and

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 7 that money is going out. You would be silly not to spend it to try and get the nomination. Is it feasible, then, when that money is charged against that association? Mr. Doer: It is not. There is a difference between expenses and li mits on contributions, and that is the way it has been. There are two streams in the Act dealing with these issues, one to deal with the prohibition of union and cor porate donations, and the lim its on individuals. There are certain limi ts in the Act dealing with expenses. You could argue that that might be a bit of a problem.

I think most political parties believe that as many nominations that you can have before the writ period, the better off you are. So I think the experience has been generally the opposite, to try and get as many nomination races done before a writ period as opposed to the opposite. It is a difference between a contri bution limit and an expense provision. Mr. Reimer: Then am I right in assuming that, if the nomination meeting is held before the writ is dropped, there are no spending limits? It is wide open. There are no guidelines; there are no expense lim its; there is nothing charged against the association.

If there is a contested nomi nation before the writ, the restrictions do not apply. Mr. Doer: That is my understanding, yes. Mr. Chairperson: If there is agreement from the Committee, the Chair will call clauses and blocks that conform- Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we are prepared to look cla use by cl ause at such a flawed bill. I mean, there have been a lot of unanswered questions here. Certainly, the law as it stands today favours the government that is elected. Today it also favours incumbent MLAs.

When I look at the issues of nomination meetings, certainly there are some significant issues raised by my col lea gue that I do not think there is a satisfactory answer to. Now the Premier is indicating that he is advising all political parties to hold their nomination meetings before the writ is dropped when he is the person that will be dropping the writ. I mean how ludic rous can this kind of legisla tion be.

It just shows the true intent, again, of this Premier and the whole process behind this legisla tion being rushed in and being introduced, not based on what his election commitment was but based on some ideological bent or motivation which probably the Young New Democrats had right. Setting all of that aside, we have a very flawed piece of legisla tion. I believe it is going to cost the taxpayers of Manitoba a significant amount of money when the court challenges start to come in. It is unconstitutional. It limi ts people's freedom to express themselves, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

My collea gue from Fort Whyte has indicated some of the issues that present themselves as the right of everyone from outside of Manitoba being permitted to participate in the elec toral process here in Manitoba. I guess that means that the Premier's brother will not be able to contribute to his election campaign next time, the one that lives just outside of Kenora. I believe this is fundamentally an extremely flawed piece of legisla tion.

I think that what the Premier is doing by this legis lation is setting the Chief El ectoral Officer up for the role of censoring what happens inside and outside of the writ period, both by political parties and third parties. I think that is unfortunate.

I think if the Premier had lived up to his election promise, that of sitting down and consulting with all parties in the Legislature, if he had gone through that process, we might see a piece of legisla tion in front of us today or in the not-too-distant future that would have buy-in from all political parties and from members of the community who have spoken out against this legislation. So it is unfortunate that he has decided to ram this through at this point in time. He, after the fact, is looking at some limited advisory role for members. An Honourable Member: Damage control. Mrs.

Mitchelson: Yes, it might be considered damage control to try to get support for this legis lation, but it will not work. I want to indicate that there are more questions than answers, and if he truly was looking at a consultative process, he would set this bill aside; appoint that committee; have us work with the Chief El ectoral Officer and bring in a piece of

11 8 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 legislation that we might all be able to support and endorse wholehe artedly. This is unilateral. It is government from on high. Quite frankly, we believe that this Premier and his government will be very embarrassed when this law is chall enged, which it will be, and they find that it is unconstitutional and it is tossed out by the courts. It will again prove that this government has not managed the legis lative process in this first session of the Legisla ture. We have seen the Minister of Highways (Mr.

Ashton)-and I suppose I probably give him a bit of credit for bringing in amendments to legislation before it even passed second reading. He obviously rushed in a bill that he had not thought through, and I do give him credit, he did backtrack and he did bring in amendments before it even came to the committee process. We are not seeing that from the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett).

I mean, she is talking and this Premier is talking about amendments to Bill 44, and we have not seen amendments to Bill 44. but maybe the Minister of Labour should take a lesson from her colle ague the Minister of Highways and look at sharing those kinds of amendments before we even get to the committee stage, but I am not sure that we are going to see that. Again, we have several pieces of legislation before us that are very undemocratic, this being one of them.

We do have to indicate, certainly, that we cannot support the process and we cannot support the legisla tion because the process for introducing this legisla tion was so flawed. We will certainly move cla use by cla use today, and Manitobans will see, as things unfold, that this government has not managed the process of introduction of legislation. It has not managed the process of consultation with community and with organizations before bringing in very flawed legislation. This is one of those pieces that I predict will come back to haunt this Premier and his government. Mr.

Cha irperson: If there is agreement from the Committee, the Chair will call cla uses in blocks that conf orm to pages, with the understanding that we will stop at any par ticular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Shall clauses 1 and 2 pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Chairperson: Shall clause 1 pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. * (1 7:30) Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: All those in favour of passing clause I. say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr.

Chai rperson: Those opposed say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. *** Mr. Chai rperson: Shall cla use 2( 1) pass? Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 9 *** Mr. Chai rperson: Shall cl ause 2(2) pass? Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: All those in favour, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: Shall cla use 2(3 ) pass? Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those in favour of passing it say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: On division. Okay, from cla uses 2(4) to 4( 1) on this page. Shall this pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those in favour of passing them, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chai rperson: On division. *** Mr. Chairperson: The next page, from Cla use 4(2) to clause 5, shall these items pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those in favour of passing it, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Those who are opposed, say Mr. Chairperson: Cla use 2(3) is passed on nay. division. * * * Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, we have indicated our intention to vote against every clause and this bill in total, so I do not know whether we would want to expedite the process by going page by page. Mr. Cha irperson: Is that agreeable? Instead of going cla use by clause, we will go page by page except when there is an amendment. [Agreed} Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr.

Chairperson: Clauses 4(2) to 5 passed on division. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Next page. Cla use 6 to cla use 1 0(2). Shall these clauses pass?

I20 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are in favour, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division, cla uses 6 to I 0(2) have been passed. * * * Mr. Chair person: Cla use II (

I) to cla use II(3) on page 6. Shall these items pass? Mr. Gerrard : Just a question to the Premier (Mr. Doer). I raised during the debate the issue of the potential for companies or unions or what have you to use innovative mechanisms for reimbursement which would in effect channel monies through intermediate reimbursements for individual contributions. I just wondered whether you had had an opportunity to have somebody have a look at this from a legal perspective. Mr. Doer: Yes, I have. I have consulted with legal counsel and officials on this matter.

The existing act and the proposed act is very cle ar on intermediaries in the so-called "innovative" questions you have raised because the concern we had when the questions were raised about payroll deductions, we bel ieve it is consistent with the principle of banning union and corporate donations. Under the existing act it does not allo w, for exa mple, a company to contribute to an individual, say, an honorarium for purposes of donating it to the political party under the $3,000 limi t. We think it is drafted with the advice of people who have dealt with this matter before and will prohibit that. Mr.

Cha irperson: Shall clauses II (

I) to II (3) pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those who are in favour of passing it, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chai rperson: On division, cla uses II (

I) to II (3) have been passed. * * * Mr. Chai rperson: Shall cla uses I2 to I5(2) pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing clauses I2 to I5(2), say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Yeas have it.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121 An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division, cl auses 12 to 15 (2) have been passed. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Shall cla uses 16 to 19 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: Those who are in favour of passing cla uses 16 to 19 , say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. Shall this pass on division? An Honourable Member: On division. Mr.

Cha irperson: On division, clauses 16 to 19 have been passed. *** Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 19 . Carry over to page 10 . Shall clause 20 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: All in favour of passing clause 20, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division, cla use 20 has been passed. *** Mr. Cha irperson: Shall cla uses 21 and 22 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: All those in favour of passing 21 and 22, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division, clauses 21 and 22 have been passed. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: Shall clauses 23 and 24 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: Those in favour of passing clauses 23 and 24, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr.

Chairperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay.

12 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Mr. Cha irperson : The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chai rperson: On division, cla uses 23 and 24 have been passed. * * * Mr. Doer: Dealing with cla use 55( 1) under

section 25. Mr. Chai rperson: An amendment is proposed. Mr. Doer: I would move this in both English and French. Moving an amendment THAT the definition of "ele ction communi cation" in the proposed

section 55. 1, as set out in

section 25 of the Bill, be repealed and the following substituted: "election communication" means a communi cation to the publi c by any means during an election period of a message that promotes or opposes a registered political party or the election of a candidate. It includes the forms of advertising mentioned in the definition of "advertising expenses" in

section I, as well as posters, signs. leaflets and other promotional material . It does not include the following: (

a) a communication made for the purpose of gaining support on an issue of public policy, or for advancing the aims of a group that is not a partisan political group, if the communication does not promote or oppose a particular registered political party or the election of a particular candidate, (

b) the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, as the case may be, or (

c) an editorial, debate, speech, interview, column, letter, commentary or news nor mally published without charge. [French version) II est propose que Ia defin ition de "communi cation electorate" de /'article 55. 1, enoncee a /'article 25 du projet de loi, soil remplacee par ce qui suit.· "communication electorale" Diff usion, sur un support quelconque au cours de Ia periode electorale, d'un message fa vorisant ou contrecarrant un parti politique inscrit ou /'election d'un candida/.

Sont compris dans Ia presente definition les fo rmes de publicite indiquees dans Ia definition de "depenses de publicite ", a /'article 1, ainsl que les ajjiches. les enseignes, les depliants et tout autre document de promotion. Sont toutef ois exclues de Ia presente defin ition:

a) les communications visant a obtenir l'appui populaire sur une question d'interet public ou a promouvoir les objectifs d'un grou pe sans aff iliation politique, si elles ne fa vorisent ni ne contrecarrent un parti politique inscrit precis ou /'election d'un candida! precis:

b) Ia diff usion, par une personne ou un groupe, de documents a leurs membres. a leurs salaries ou a leurs actionnaires, selon le cas,·

c) Ia diff usion d'editoriaux, de debats. de discours, d'interviews, de chroniques, de lettres, de commentaires et de no uvelles qui se fa it d'habitude gratuitement. ("election commum cation '') Motion presented. Mr. Chai rperson: The amendment is in order. Shall the amendment pass? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Cha irperson : I heard no. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson : Those in favour of passing the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Those who are opposed, say nay.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 3 Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chai rperson: The amendment to

section 55. 1 as set out in

section 25 of the Bill has been passed on division. *** Mr. Chairperson: Shall cla use 25 pass? Some Honourable Members: No. * (17: 40) Mr. Chai rperson: Another amendment is being proposed. Mr. Doer: I move THAT

section 25 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed

section 55.12: Guidelines Guidelines 55. 13(1) The Chief El ectoral Officer shall after consultation with the election communi cations advisory committee referred to in subsection (2)-issue guidelines to assist third parties and others in deciding whether communications are included within the definition of "election communication" in

section 55. 1. Election communications advisory committee 55.13(2) The elections communications adviso_ry commi�ee shall be the advisory committee establis hed in

section 4, with the addition of members representing media associations in Manitoba. Media representatives 15.13(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the members of the advisory committee established in

section 4 shall identify media associations in Manitoba, and each such association may appoint a representative to the election communications advisory committee.

I would so move, in both English and in French. [French v.ersion] II est propose que /'article 25 du projet de loi soil amende par adjonction, apris !'article 25 du projet de loi soil amende par adjonction, apres !'article 55. 12, de ce qui suit: Lignes directrices Lignes directrices 55.1 3(1) Apres consultation du Comite consul tatif sur les communications electorates mentionne au paragraphe (2), le directeur general des elections etablit des !ignes directrices af in d'aider les tiers et les autres personnes a determiner si les communications sont visees par Ia definition de "communication electorate" a /'article 55. 1.

Comiti consultatif sur les communications ilectorales 55.1 3(2) Le Comite consultatif sur les com munications electorates est le comite consultatif constitue en vertu de /'article 4, plus des membres re presentant /es associations de medias au Manitoba. Reprisentants des medias 55.1 3(3) Pour /'application du paragraphe (2), les membres du Comite consultatif constitue en vertu de /'article 4 determinent /es associations de medias au Manitoba, et chacune de ces associations peut nommer un representant au Comite consu/tatif sur /es communications electorates. Motion presented. Mr.

Chai rperson: The amendment is in the proper order. Shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chai rperson: I heard no. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing the amendment, say yea.

12 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Those who are opposed to passing the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. This amend ment to

section 25 of the Bill has been passed on division. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: Shall cla use 25 as amended pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing clause 25 as amended, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division, cla use 25 as amended has been passed. *** Mr. Cha irperson: Shall clause 26 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr.

Chairperson: Those in favour of passing clause 26, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cl ause 26 has been passed on division. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: Shall cla uses 27 to 29 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing cla uses 27 to 29, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr.

Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cla uses 27 to 29 have been passed on division. *** Mr. Chairperson: Shall cla uses 30 to 33 (1) pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are in favour of passing clauses 30 to 33 (1) , say yea.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 5 Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: Cla uses 30 to 33 (1) have been passed on division. *** Mr. Chai rperson: Shall cla uses 33( 2) to 36 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of passing cla uses 33( 2) to 36, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr.

Chairperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cla uses 37 and 38 have been passed on division. *** Mr. Chair person: Shall cla uses 39 and 40 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing cla uses 39 and 40, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cl auses 33(2 ) to 36 have been passed on division. * * * Mr. Chair person: Shall clauses 37 and 38 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those in favour of passing cl auses 37 and 38, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cl auses 39 and 40 have been passed on division. *** Mr. Chairperson: Cla uses 41 to 44(1) pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr.

Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing clauses 41 to 44( 1 ), say yea.

12 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Cla uses 41 to 44( 1) have been passed on division. * * * Mr. Doer: I think we have an amendment at 44(2), as proposed, and then we have an amendment at

section 45 . Mr. Cha irperson: Cla uses 41 to 44( 1) have been passed on division. Shall cl ause 44(2) pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Cha irperson: Cla use 44(2) is accordingly passed. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. There will be an amendment on cla use 45. Mr. Doer: I would so move THAT

section 45 of the Biii be struck out and the follo wing substituted: Coming into force 45( 1) This Act, except sections 25 and 40, comes into force on January I, 200 I. Coming into force: sections 25 and 40 45(2) Sections 25 and 40 come into force on the day fixed by proclama tion. I would so move the amendments in English and in French. [French version] II est propose que /'article 45 du projet de /oi soil remplace par ce qui suit: Entree en vigueur 450) La pn?sente loi, a /'exception des articles 25 et 40, entre en vigueur le fer janvier 2001.

Entree en vigueur des articles 25 et 40 45(2) Les articles 25 et 40 entrent en vi gueur a Ia date jixee par proclamation. Mr. Cha irperson: In both English and French, the amendment has been proposed. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Chair person: Shall the amendment as proposed be passed? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing the amendment to

section 45, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division, the amendment to

section 45 has been passed. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: Shall cla use 45 as amended pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing clause 45 as amended, say yea.

August 8, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 7 Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 45 as amended-pass. On division. *** Mr. Chairperson: Shall the

preamble pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Chai rperson: Those in favour of passing the

preamble, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. *** Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, before we deal with the final clause or reporting stage of this bill, I just want to put a few remarks on the record. This bill takes away the fundamental rights and freedoms that most people hold very dearly. This bill takes away the enfranchisement of the freedom of the el ectoral process and to contribute into or participate in.

I think this is the first time that I have seen in this province any government attempting to muzzle the involve ment of the el ectorate to this extent. I think it is unfortunate that this NDP party and the Leader (Mr. Doer) of this NDP party has decided that he will bring down the hammer on the people of Manitoba and stop them from participating fully and freely in an el ectoral process that we have held dear since the formation of this province and indeed the country. I think it is a sad day for the people of Manitoba. Mr. Cha irperson: Shall the

preamble pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of passing the

preamble, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson:

Preamble -pas s. On division. *** Mr. Chai rperson: Shall the title pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour of passing the title of the Bill, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those who are opposed, say nay. An Honourable Member: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Yeas have it.

128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 8, 2000 An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Title-pass. On division. *** Mr. Cha irperson: Shall the Bill as amended be reported? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are in favour of reporting the Bill as amended, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: Those who are opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: The Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: Bill as amended be reported on division.

That concludes the business before the Committee. What is the will of the Committee? Committee rise. COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 5:49 p.m.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-pe3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf pe3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4558621b1093c81a4b47cd024a7bd3ef92a7e8cf

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