Manitoba Committee Hansard — 4 June 2008 (Justice Committee, Sitting 10, 39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-ju10

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Justice Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. LX No. 10 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, June 4, 2008 ISSN 1708-6671

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. 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. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia 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 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. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor 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. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

427 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Wednesday, June 4, 2008 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. Messrs. Ashton, Chomiak Ms. Brick, Messrs. Brie se, Caldwell, Derkach, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Jennissen, Jha, Reid, Mrs. Rowat Substitutions: Mr. Goertzen for Mrs. Rowat APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mrs. Mavis Taillieu, MLA for Morris Mr. Cliff Graydon, MLA for Emerson Mr.

Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield Mr. Hugh McFadyen, MLA for Fort Whyte Mr. Blaine Pedersen, MLA for Carman Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden WITNESSES: Bill 37– The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act Ms. Marni Larkin, Private Citizen Mr. David G. Newman, Private Citizen Mr. Craig Johnson, Private Citizen Mr.

David Keam, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act Mr. Paul G.

Thomas, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 14–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act Bill 26–The Legal Profession Amendment Act Bill 35–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008 Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act Bill 39–The Court of Appeal Amendment Act Bill 40–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Order please.

Would the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order. The first item of business we have is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I nominate Ms. Marilyn Brick. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I'd like to nominate Mr. Goertzen. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Derkach. Mr. Goertzen's not a member of the committee at the moment. So, as soon as I announce– [interjection] The first item of business is the election of a Vice- Chairperson, so I'd have to move through the procedural part first, Mr. Derkach. Yes, sir, go ahead. Mr.

Derkach: Well, Mr. Chair, the individual that I will then nominate is someone who has had an enormous amount of experience in chairing. Now, he was the president of AMM and, certainly, is well qualified for the position. I would, therefore, submit the name of Mr. Briese as Vice-Chair for this committee.

428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Briese has been nominated. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs): Again, the members know the rules. We were almost tempted for a moment that Mr. Goertzen be appointed. I would be interested to watch him raise points of order on himself, but we do have rules. I think we know that. I know the member quite well from Ste. Rose and I know he respects the rules. I suggest we get on with the presenters, some of whom have been here sometime before and at least one of whom knows about the rules of the Legislature.

An Honourable Member: He's shutting down nominations? Mr. Ashton: No, no. We wouldn't ever deign to interfere in terms of Public Accounts either. So we know in Public Accounts we have–in fact, the Member for Russell (M r. Derkach) is the Chair of Public Accounts and we feel that kind of focus in the rules that respects the roles of opposition government members is quite appropriate so, indeed, we have one eligible nomination for Vice-Chair. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, just to make sure there's balance in our approach, I will also nominate Mr. Jha. * (18:10) Mr. Chairperson: Any further nominations?

Seeing no further nominations, start with Ms. Brick. All those in favour of Ms. Brick as the Vice- Chair of this committee, please signify by raising their hands. A COUNT-OUT VOTE WAS TAKEN, the result being as follows: Ms. Brick, 6; Mr. Briese, 3; Mr. Jha, 1. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been elected as the Vice-Chairperson of this committee. Committee Substitution Mr. Chairperson: Now, the next order of business we have is a substitution for this committee: Mr. Goertzen for Mrs. Rowat. * * * Mr.

Chairperson: This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 14, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act; Bill 26, The Legal Profession Amendment Act; Bill 35, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008; Bill 37, The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act; Bill 39, The Court of Appeal Amendment Act; Bill 40, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.

As was announced in the House, this committee will also meet in this room to consider these bills tomorrow night, Thursday, June 5, starting at 6 p.m. At our meeting last night, the committee agreed to hear the remaining presenters listed for Bill 37. Our committee clerk contacted each of these presenters today to remind them of the meeting time. In fact, I believe contact was attempted twice for each person. For the information of committee members, we received instruction that two of these presenters did not wish to proceed with their presentations and asked that their names be removed from the list.

Also, a written submission on Bill 37 was received from Paul Thomas and has been distributed. I believe copies are in front of each of the committee members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this committee meeting? [Agreed] For the information of all presenters that are with us here this evening, while written versions of presentations are not requ ired, if you are going accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies.

If you need assistance with photocopying, please speak with our staff at the entrance to this committee room, and we'll assist you in that regard. As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with an additional five minutes allowed for questions from the various committee members here this evening. Also in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Further, if a presenter is not in attenda nce when their name has been called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. Before proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public about the

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 429 process for speaking in our committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript of these committee meetings. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA at the committee table or a presenter at our podium here , I first, as Chairperson, must indicate that person's name, and this is a signal for our Hansard folks sitting behind me to turn your microphones on. Thank you for your patience, and we'll now proceed with public presentations.

Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act Mr. Chairperson: The first person I have listed this evening, which is a second call for Marni Larkin. Is Ms. Larkin with us this evening? Good evening, Ms. Larkin. Welcome. Thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Marni Larkin (Private Citizen): No. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready. Ms. Larkin: I just want to thank the committee so much for having me here today.

It's nice to know that there are still some parts of democracy that are alive and well and that people have an opportunity to speak to legislation that they don't necessarily agree to or see as democratic in any way. So one of the members mentioned that I've been around here before, and I'm familiar with the process. One thing I'll start off by saying is that it's sure lovely to sit when it's this kind of weather. We used to have to sit when it was about 37 degrees. So, as far as I'm concerned, sitting till midnight on Saturdays and so on is a welcome thing for this committee.

I'm here today because I am opposed to Bill 37, and I'm opposed for a number of reasons. But I do want to start off by saying that I understand why the current government would want to move this agenda forward.

Clearly, they've been in government for some time and, when you get to a place where you realize that you have to do some tough things and you're changing legislation, you're upsetting the voting base in the province, you have an opposition party that's nipping at your heels, you have to do things to manipulate the process to ensure that you can continue to win because, when you're comfortable in a government position, looking at the opposition, your worst day in government is always better than your best day in opposition. So I'm sure that that was the motive behind some of these changes.

I'm sure that the government, after listening to these presentations and hearing people's concerns, will make the appropriate changes prior to moving forward. I want to start off with the fixed election date. I don't know if the government has access to a dictionary, but the definition of fixed in the Oxford Dictionary is, actually, firmly in position, stationary, determined, established and not subject to change or variation. If one wanted to call what the government's proposing "fixed," I think that they would have to review the definition of that word and then make the appropriate amendments. Mr.

Chair, I think that the more appropriate name for what the government's currently proposing is convenient election dates. Depending on, maybe, what the polls say or depending on how well the opposition's doing, if one needed to, one could move forward with an election and ensure that they continue to govern with their heavy fists. It goes on from there; the next thing is the political advertising and the process associated with it. There have been a number of changes over the years in regard to the political advertising.

Again, I'm very curious as to–the government has spoken on a regular basis about their position and how comfortable they feel with where they sit, where their numbers are, yet they still feel the need to maneuver and manipulate what other people are going to do to try and advance their causes. Democracy is built on freedom of speech and the ability to ensure that voters are aware of one's position and policies.

It seems to me that some of these new advertising rules put a little too much control in the hands of the government and takes away the ability for any party, regardless if it's the official opposition or the other party in the House, to advance its causes. It seems ludicrous to me. I can't imagine that, if the majority of voters in Manitoba knew the exact extent of this, they would be supporting it.

430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Then we go on to talk about things, like appointed registrars. That's always interesting because we talk about having somebody who is not partisan, who is independent and who has really no view. We've seen some instances of those–what happens when people have those so-called positions. In Ottawa recently, there was a raid on the Conservative Party of Canada's headquarters that was ordered by the new independent commissioner of Elections Canada.

Funny enough, the first people on the scene at that raid were the Liberal Party of Canada, not the RCMP, whom one would expect, not the officials from Elections Canada. It was the Liberal Party. When they were questioned with regard to that, they were told that the clear link was they were informed that this raid would be happening by Elections Canada. Again, one would dare to say that that is an independent body which taxpayers can be assured is there to watch out after their best interests.

That is, yet, another example of what can happen with these so-called independent positions when they're appointed by various people that have power in mind. That's a really big concern.

When we move down and talk about some of the new taxes associated, I dare to say that, if you were to have an open call to voters in Manitoba and say, how do you feel about giving an additional $500,000 to political parties?, I would guarantee you that more than half of them–which is what democracy is about– would say that they weren't in support of that, especially ensuring the majority of that funding went to the current governing party, so that they could continue to maneuver their agenda. * (18:20) It's funny to me that this act has changed through The Lobbyists Registration Act.

Yet we have all these sub-pieces; this portion hasn't really been at the forefront or the main concern of the bill, but I think that, to the people that matter, which is the people that ensure that you have employment in this building, this would be probably the largest concern. Taxes are regularly committed to being decreased, not increased secretly so that they can fund the doings of politics. Again, we go back to what has happened in the past with parties that have used tax dollars to fund campaigns, and it doesn't have a good outcome.

I understand that this is being written into legislation so it seems different, but when taxpayers catch on to it, it won't be any different to them. I would caution the government in regard to moving forward with that. As a whole, I guess that I'm shocked again that the government has to go to these lengths in order to ensure that they are in a position that can help them to maintain their current status. I guess it's good news on one side of things.

I clearly am in support of the official opposition part y, and I guess, from that perspective, it's good news because, obviously, the government is nervous and feels uncomfortable with the work that the official opposition is doing and they have to go to these extents. From that side, I guess I'm not saddened to be here because I would suggest if the government continues with these types of acts, what will happen soon is that the official opposition will take their rightful place as the new government after the next election. That could be a reason for celebration. I guess that's pretty much all I have to say.

Everyone likes you to keep chatting at these things, but I'm sort of short and to the point. I was wondering if anybody had any questions or concerns with regard to some of my comments. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Larkin, for your presentation here this evening. Questions of the presenter by committee members? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you very much, Ms. Larkin. I thank you for taking the time to come to the committee this evening, even though it's a beautiful day outside but not 36 degrees inside this building.

You mentioned that there are a number of components to the bill, The Lobbyists Registration Act, which I appreciate your comments and your experience on because we haven't had as much discussion about that as we have on other portions of the bill. Some presenters have indicated that they think it would be more democratic for the bill to be scrapped altogether, but in the absen ce of that, if there would be a splitting of the bill into its five sections because they deal with somewhat different provisions and often are amending different acts.

That, some might argue, makes just five bad pieces of legislation, but certainly some people suggested that it would allow individuals to digest each part separately on its own merits. Do you think there'd be value in splitting

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 431 what is described as an omnibus bill into five sections and have that debate on five individual bills? Ms. Larkin: Absolutely. That's part of the problem is that the majority of the public, because it's cased into bill and it's this omnibus bill, the public have a hard time digesting each individual piece. If we were able to split it up, I think that the public would have a better opportunity to share their concerns and understand the magnitude of some of these changes. Mr.

Goertzen: One of the provisions of the bill which you didn't focus on specifically was the last part of the bill which allows for a government-run committee of the Legislature, referred to here as the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, LAMC, to vet or to approve mail by not only the opposition party but government members as well. That essentially means that anything that I as an opposition member, as an MLA more specifically, would want to send out, I would have to have the approval of government members.

That strikes me, obviously, as concerning, but from your experience in dealing with democracy generally and constituents in different roles, do you think that infringes upon the right of constituents themselves to hear what's happening in the Legislature, as opposed to even my right as an MLA to send something out? To me, it seems to strike at the heart of the right of an individual to hear what's happening in the Legislature with an unvetted process. Would you agree with that? Ms. Larkin: Absolutely.

I'm actually confused as to why a government that prides itself on being open and having no secrets would feel the need to censor materials that people are sending out. For example, if this was in place right now, the majority of people in Manitoba would not have the ability necessarily to know the detail of what was going on. So, although it's already confusing, this is simply adding another layer that does not allow the ability for people to make an informed choice when they're going to an election. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Chairperson, to the presenter, as you' re aware, this proposed legislation affects several different acts, and those acts are what I would classify as politically sensitive in the sense that they're the way in which political parties get elected. It deals with the way in which MLAs correspond and so fo rth. I guess what I'm going to look for is an opinion from you in regard to how the act came into being because there is only one political party that actually brought in the legislation; no one else knew about it.

No other political party is supporting the legislation, whether it's elected party representatives, or even registered parties outside of the Legislature, no one, to the best of my knowledge, is actually supporting the bill as it is. Does it make a difference to you if there would have been other political parties involved in a consensus developed before the legislation would have been brought forward, and if so, why? Ms.

Larkin: It would make a huge difference to me if all parties were involved because at that point, at least when we came up with a consensus, we would know that we had a fair agreement in regard to moving forth with an election. This actually deals with people's ability to get the message out and get people behind them to ensure that they can win a seat in this legislature. If all parties aren't consulted and don't have an opinion, it really seems unfair, and once again, back to the undemocratic way to push something through. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Larkin.

In the bill, there's a provision that allows for the party to have access to taxpayer dollars based on the previous number of seats that the party was awarded in the election. There seems to be no limit in terms of the amount of money that could, in fact, be taken out of taxpayers' pockets because, although the bill sets it out at, I think $1.25 per voter, it also has a built-in cost-of- living allowance. Yet it is the same government that refuses to give retired teachers the COLA. I'm wondering what your views are in terms of this

section of the bill and how, in fact, it perhaps is undemocratic in terms of taking money out of taxpayers' pockets, even though the taxpayer may not support that particular philosophy of that party. Ms. Larkin: Well, Mr. Chair, it's undemocratic because taxpayers aren't going to be given the correct information moving forward. I mean, when you have a rolling scale, nobody can make an informed decision to say that that would be acceptable or not.

The cost of living could go up by a million times, let's just say, hypothetically, and you're asking someone to make a decision based on the information you're giving them, and it could be quite skewed. So, of course, that's undemocratic when you're moving forward. If you don't have a set parameter, if there are not metrics behind it, nobody can make an informed decision.

432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Mr. Derkach: Ms. Larkin, I'm sure that many Manitobans don't really understand the details of this legislation, and, in fact, some who have presented have suggested that this is a bill that should have broader consultation than just what happens here in the Legislature. I think you alluded to that in your presentation tonight in terms of making sure that Manitobans have their say when it comes to a bill that impacts on them in this way.

Do you think that the government should, in fact, postpone this bill for a period of time and take it to Manitobans for fuller discussion and then return to the Legislature with the results of that and then proceed on the basis of what they have heard? Ms.

Larkin: A hundred percent, because if Manitobans had a chance individually to hear, in their own communities, what the magnitude and the impacts of these things could have on them and make opinions, then regardless of the outcome, we would all have a position where we'd have to live with it because the democratic process would have been at play, and people would have had an opinion that was heard and addressed. * (18:30) Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Ms. Larkin, for being here. Nice to see you. The question I have and, you know, you're out there a lot with the public.

Do you think that, as more Manitobans hear about the contents of this bill, at some point with that increased knowledge, within the whole political process, we could face a backlash and see a decreased number of people interested in coming out to vote because their cynicism would just be so ramped up? Ms. Larkin: Absolutely. The links that I have heard in the community–and I am a business owner and I consult with a lot of various companies–is that this is government up to the same old tricks, and they're all the same.

If we continue to hear that, unfortunately, on a regular basis, each election we see the number of people that vote dwindle and that is concerning, I'm sure, to all parties, because we want to make sure that the people that are el ected are truly represented. When you only have 47 percent of a riding come out to vote, then whoever is elected really shouldn't feel that good about it because they really haven't had their 50-plus-one. So I think that the more these types of games and, basically, collusion continue, the less people are going to be interested in the democratic process. Mrs.

Driedger: An aspect in this legislation, in the lobbyist component of it, that actually uses such broad language that it creates different rules for unions coming to speak to the government versus ordinary, you know, Mr. Chair, business and ordinary Manitobans from speaking to the government. The unions are let off the hook from having to put forward reports or even consider themselves lobbyists because the language is so broad that they basically play by a different set of rules.

Do you think that creates a level playing field in this province in terms of all of the people that want to come and speak to the government about various issues? Ms. Larkin: No, I don't. As a business owner who– my primary business is being a consultant. Based on some of the terms and some of the

definitions in this legislation, I now have become a lobbyist if this were to pass, and my business would dramatically change. It would give people that I normally am able to work with less opportunity to work with me and more opportunity to work with a union to advance a cause because their position is weighted with government. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, Ms. Larkin. Time has expired. Next presenter we have on the list is David G. Newman, QC. Good evening, Mr. Newman. Welcome, sir. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. David G.

Newman, (Private Citizen): I do not have a written presentation. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Newman: I first want to thank the legislators of the past and present who have created this forum to allow public intervention. It's a rare privilege we have in Manitoba, and for those who perpetuate it I'm grateful for that, and it allows me as a private citizen to participate. I want to assure you I'm here as a private citizen.

I have affiliations and historic affiliations, but I've also stood at this podium in the past criticizing all parties that have been government in Manitoba, and had the Liberals been in government when I've been an adult and of voting age, I probably would've been up here criticizing what they did too. Some mo re than others, and that's obviously why I belong to a political party other than the New Democratic Party, because I have more agreement with them than I do with you.

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 433 This bill is an example of that, Bill 37. I want to speak also to the value system that drove me to offer myself for public service as an elected official back in 1995. That's how long ago it was, and the words of Václav Havel still ring and resonate in my heart and mind at all times. I urge you to let them resonate with you, because I'm counting on it.

I'm counting on you legislators today to appreciate how high your calling is and how important it is and how high the expectations are of people that have the ideals and expectations that I do in relation to anyone who's performing a service, and especially those who are paid by taxpayers to perform the service as legislators. He said, on June 8, 1995, in a speech made at Harvard University: The main task of the present generation of politicians is to assume their share of responsibility for the long-range prospects of our world and thus to set an example for the public in whose sight they work.

Their responsibility is to think ahead boldly, not to fear the disfavor of the crowd, to imbue their actions with a spiritual dimension to explain again and again–both to the public and to their colleagues–that politics must do far more than reflect the interests of particular groups or lobbies. After all, politics is a matter of serving the community, which means that it is morality in practice. With that background and that level of expectation of all of you, I'm going to call attention first to what appears to me to be a serious deficiency in process resulting in Bill 37 being created.

I do speak to the individual members of the caucus of the New Democratic Party and the Cabinet of the New Democratic Party because I wonder what input they had into the creation of Bill 37. I wonder who drafted Bill 37. I wonder whether it came out of the Premier's (Mr. Doer) office by the kinds of political staff guiding it in ways that it's been done when we've had bad legislation in the past, and, I submit, disrespectful of the incredible importance of the rules governing democracy.

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I'm very concerned because if the caucus and Cabinet, the individual members of your party had input into this, I say, shame on you. I say, why didn't you stand up and get something better for the people of Manitoba at the time this legislation in bill form was made available to you. Now, let me just explain why I'm saying that and why that's so important. I do disclose that I am a member of the policy committee of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce as a private citizen and a professional belonging to a law firm in the province of Manitoba. Mr.

Chair, I've had a long history in the involvement of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce and I believed that the quality of their policy presentations to you is exemplary. I do commend to you their brief on this Bill 37, and I urge you to take a very close look at it. One of the things they raised was this process thing. I mean, was there proper objective and partial analysis given to this in a quality way? When you're dealing with the rules of democracy and choosing, the process of choosing who's going to get elected, there's nothing more fundamental than that. So let's talk about that process for a moment.

The process in this case was to lump together a number of different amendments to different statutes. The ones that cry out for most attention relate to limits on advertising. Now, the $50,000 to $75,000 is the one that I'm going to talk at, and the $150,000 in a fixed-date election year. If the process was not a serious, legitimate process for input to begin with, the standard that I submit has to be met for legislation like this is it has to be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society because it's violating some essential freedoms, most significant one being freedom of expression.

So, when you impose a limit like that on the ability of people to tangibly show their freedom of choice, their freedom of expression, that is a serious intervention of a constitutional nature, a Charter- protected kind of intervention. So the process should be exemplary. The process wasn't exemplary here. * (18:40) You can say, well, you've had a chance to come and speak here, but what's missing is the opportunity for political parties that aren't here, for political parties that are here but haven't engaged in a non- public kind of discussion about a proposal, hopefully to make democracy better.

If that process had taken place–almost like a labour management review committee where you have unions and management exchanging views about initiatives–if you'd done that about the rules of our democracy, then you would have identified issues: legal, policy, constitutional and simply a perceived sense of fairness, based on experienced political parties in the past. The issues would have been identified; the positions of the parties would have been disclosed; then, if there wasn't an agreement made about what would be good for democracy, there'd be an agreement to disagree,

434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 which you could then take to this kind of process or to a broader process. That would be meaningful. That's what private citizens expect of you. When you have the appearance of partiality, which happens every time the government proposes something that patently benefits them at the expense of other political parties, then it lacks credibility right off the bat. All the more reason you have to do it. Then the other point I make, besides the process point–maybe this has been discussed. I have not read Hansard.

I don't know what has happened in these debates; I haven't sat in on hearing other presenters– just one, by chance. I don't know why you've come up with $75,000 and $150,000. Is that substantively in compliance with what is demonstratively justifiable in a free and democratic society? What is the reasoning behind that? In the courts, that would be scrutinized in a moment, because it seems so grossly limited when you compare it to the freedom that the government has to spend taxpayers' money right up to 60 days before an election, in addition to spending this kind of money as a political party.

Have you appreciated that, if this figure of $1 million–that's about 0.0001 percent or less of the $9 billion budget, and it's less than what is raised– surely, the purpose of this kind of rule is to avoid egregious abuse of wealth and power to distort democracy. This should not be to hogtie, to prevent exercises of free speech. In closing, because I've run out of time, the fixed election date should apply to this government now and for the next election. Why shouldn't it? Games can still be played in the meantime and imposed on the other.

Finally, I just suggest that one way of dealing with the $1.25, plus inflationary increases–make the changes that are fundamental, if they're going to be perceived with at all. Make them effective June 14, 2011. Make them effective after the next election. Then you'll get some semblance of credibility. Let me make a challenge to the other political party which is here.

I'd be very interested–they're so concerned about this bill th at they'll go on record as saying, if we get elected, when we get elected, we will change that legislation, because I know these folks are gathering all this evidence and all these submissions, and they're going to throw it back at you. So are you really serious about this and will you do it? Thank you very much for the time to make this submission. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation here this evening, Mr. Newman. Questions of the presenter? Mr. Goertzen: Thank you very much, Mr. Newman. Welcome back to the building.

It's a pleasure to address you. You'll probably know that legislators like to take the opportunity, when they have a chance, to ask lawyers questions without being sort of on the billable hours. We do that, and so I'm going to ask you specifically to the issue you raised about the possibility of the limitation on political parties to advertise both outside and during an election year being constitutional, whether or not it would withstand the challenge of being demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

You mentioned that an accord would take into consideration the consultation that went on prior to that provision being put into a bill. I understand that in The Elections Act, there is a provision for an all-party committee or a committee of all parties to meet to discuss changes to The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act. My understanding is that this bill was not discussed with that committee. In fact, that committee hasn't met for over two years. So are you indicating that that would be a factor in what a court would determine whether or not that provision, in particular, is constitutional? Mr.

Newman: Absolutely, that should be part of any constitutional challenge. That is an egregious kind of violation of minimal expectations with regard to due process. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Newman, for being here and for putting forward your very thoughtful comments. You talked about advertising, and that's what I wanted to ask you about because when this government came in, in 2000, they brought forward this limit of $50,000 that we could be spending from our perspective.

Would you be surprised to hear that, while we were held to the $50,000 cap, government actually, each year, spends somewhere in the vicinity between $8 million and $15 million on advertising, keeping in mind some of it would obviously be needed and worthwhile? But out of that, with

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 435 Spirited Energy or there've been actually a number of campaigns where significant amounts of money have been spent, that you could say looked pretty obviously meant to bolster the NDP's image in the province. Do you think that has been a fair or unfair playing field in terms of us being limited to $50,000 and government being allowed to spend $8 million to $15 million? Mr. Newman: My answer, Mr. Chair, would be it's unacceptably and outrageously disproportionate.

I would never advocate that a government be restricted in its degree of communication, but I think the ratio between what the government spends on advertising and what alternative governments are allowed to spend as constructive critics of that, or even negative critics of that, has to be reasonable. I challenge anyone to come up and say how can that be reasonable, let alone 75 or 150 grand for a year into the future.

I would submit there should be no limits, but I can understand why there could be theoretically a need for limits, even in Manitoba, just as there has been in the United States of America for limits. I'm saying, without any hesitation, that a million dollars would be a low limit. Anything less than that would be unacceptable. Mrs. Driedger: In the first six years following the NDP bringing in that legislation that capped us, their $8 million to $15 million a year actually added up to almost $70 million.

For a period of time that kept us really, really at the low level of our ability to challenge the government, put out advertising. So we were kept at a very low limit, while in a six-year period they actually spent almost $70 million on advertising. * (18:50) We brought in a private member's bill that would set standards–or the legislation would set standards for government advertising.

The standards would be very, very specific, and, if an MLA thought that the government was breaching one of those standards, that MLA could actually make a complaint to the auditor, and the auditor would have the full ability to investigate. If the auditor found that, indeed, there was a breach of a standard , the government would then be ordered to reimburse the Crown for the cost of that advertising. At the end of each year, the auditor would have to also report annually to the Legislative Assembly on government advertising. They do this in Ontario.

It's very interesting because, at the end of a year, the auditor has put out a report that gets tabled in the Legislature on what the government has spent. Ontario has gone ahead and done this. In fact, it's even stricter than what we put forward in our private member's bill. Do you think that's something that should be looked at here with, maybe, this private member's bill as a starting point? Mr. Newman: The answer, Mr.

Chair, would be that in doing the kind of due diligence that a bill as invasive in democracy as this is, setting the rules, there should be an examination of all best practices to make sure that government advertising is not being misused and ways of addressing that. At this point, let me just say that the point that I'm making–and I think that should be part of the process I'm talking about. If it isn't done, if you don't determine in a demonstrably justifiable way that there's a need for something, what in Manitoba has ever demonstrated there's a need for those kinds of limits historically?

In Canada, what has ever demonstrated that at a provincial level? Where it has, where there are limits, what's been done to counter then that excessive power of government in its discretion to do advertising which can be seen to be supportive of a particular political party? We have this line all the time. I watch with great interest, before anything important is coming up. I watch the union ads on television, because we get a large public-sector-union representation in this province; they clearly believe that an alliance with this government is favourable to their interest.

You can just see it's all timed coincidentally to be supportive of the government initiative concerning their particular part of the public-sector- employee representation through unions. So this is not new news, but best practices should be looked at and a process that is demonstrably justifiable of whatever they come up with should be pursued. What they come up with, in amounts and limits, should be demonstrably justified, based on evidence. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Newman, thank you for your presentation. You had mentioned several things about why this bill is undemocratic.

My question to you would be regarding the rationale that the Premier (Mr. Doer) used in his comments to this bill as to the reason for bringing it

436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 in. He said that members of the federal government are sending mail into unheld ridings, promoting, of course, their cause; one of the objections was that we, as MLAs, would be sending what the Premier termed partisan mailings into non-held government ridings. Do you not feel that it is our duty and obligation to communicate with Manitobans about the policies of a government, perhaps, or to criticize government on initiatives taken by different ministries, so that Manitobans would indeed understand what truly goes on in the Legislature?

You were a minister; you were an MLA. Did you not feel at that time that it was your right to communicate with as many Manitobans as you could, as an MLA? Mr. Newman: Mr. Chair, of course, I felt it was my right, and the limits of effectively making clear to the public that what was disseminated to them was not from a political party for everything from the colours to the major theme of the communications.

There's a line to be drawn there, but, if that is an intimidation, if that precludes you from exercising responsible free speech and that is policed to a greater degree than government advertising, that, to me, is the measure. I mean, the justification for having to deal with what is a blatant government misuse of the taxpayers' money on advertising, that has to be countered and only MLAs would be able to counter it effectively and they should be granted a very, very considerable deference in doing that in the use of their budget. Mr. Lamoureux: First of all, welcome, Mr. Newman, it's great to see you here.

The biggest problem that I have with this legislation is the issue of freedom of speech. I want to give you a specific example. If this bill was to pass without amendment and I was to take one of my business cards which has Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party on it and then I was to take a petition and I table a petition regarding the Crocus fund where it would say:

whereas the NDP government was negligent in not watching over or doing what it is it should be, therefore

be it resolved that the NDP government should call a public inquiry, and I attach the card to that petition, the petition and the card would both be ruled out because I had NDP in the petition, I have Deputy Leader on my card. Then if I was to take an editorial about the Crocus, let's say from the Free Press and it made any reference to NDP, Liberal or PC and I was to photocopy and put it into the envelope, that envelope would not be able to be mailed under this current legislation. I'm interested in how you would respond to that. Mr.

Newman: Yes, I suppose there are ways that one could do it and avoid those kinds of choice of words. Because you are an MLA, you do have an office and you can be contacted in that kind of a way. So, as the New Democratic Party learned, legislation like this, the people will always find a way to overcome what is blatantly unfair. The Conservatives now, because they've become a better and stronger party because they're more responsive to individuals and not taking a more convenient way out to get money from groups.

So human beings in Manitoba are very wise and they have a great sense of fairness and I know, I don't have any doubts, the NDP is going to pay dearly for running this legislation through because it is, I believe, disrespectful for those kinds of people that have that sense of fairness. If these kinds of things that have been described by Kevin Lamoureux are going to be the use of the legislation with the expanded definition, I guess, after fixed legislations, that's very disturbing. People are going to see that as unfair, especially given the disproportionate power that government has through advertising. Mr.

Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen with a short question, sir. We're almost out of time. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Newman, you were an MLA and a minister prior to my coming to Legislature in 1999.

I had some experience, I guess, last few years with a body known as the LAMC, Legislative Assembly Management Commission, which, as you know, is a group of MLAs who sort of determine some of the internal workings of the legislation and wouldn't be well known beyond these walls, but in the time that I've been here, I've been led to believe by members of this committee and the LAMC that all decisions on that committee are made by consensus. There's never been a vote taken. No decision has ever been made without consensus. That's been reinforced to me by the Government House Leader and others.

Are you aware of any decisions that have been made without consensus on that committee? * (19:00)

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 437 Mr. Newman: Never–I was a Deputy House Leader, but the House leaders were so competent and so attentive to the needs participating that I never participated myself. It struck me, in reading the bill, that the power of this committee is such that it would seem to me that there should be published minutes of it. There should be an accountability. If there's an agreement or disagreement on it, it should be published and it should be circulated to the broad public. It should be a transparent committee and the public should know. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation here this evening, Mr. Newman. The next presenter we have on the list is Craig Johnson. Good evening, sir. Mr. Craig Johnson (Private Citizen): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Johnson: Mr. Chair, I have one available. If the committee would like to have a copy of it, I can provide it by e-mail or I can submit it to your Clerk. Mr. Chairperson: Your choice, sir. Mr. Johnson: Well, maybe you want to hear it first and decide. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Mr.

Johnson: I'm just going to grab a glass of water ahead of time so I don't interrupt the proceedings. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Johnson: Members of the legislative committee, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak to you this evening. Thank you for your patience and consideration in listening while I and many others utilize our own freedom of speech. Madam Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Freedom of speech is one of the most hallowed rights and entitlements of being Canadian and living in our great country.

Freedom to express oneself, even if we're not presumed correct, is a sacred liberty that must not be sacrificed. This freedom does come with an obligation, and that obligation is to listen to the opinions of others when they respectfully disagree. Bill 37, which, in an omnibus package, attempts to create a Hydra's heads of minor legislation, is a terrible mistake. These amendments and new laws instead create more barriers to people participating as citizens in our political process.

They reduce the flow of information from our elected representatives and shamelessly violate the principles embodied in the Westminster model of Parliaments, which is the bedrock of our sacred rights and freedoms. This bill is not necessary at all. There is no clear need to even bring this bill into existence.

Madam Vice-Chair, previous ame ndments to The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act that have occurred since 1999 have been perceived to be atrociously partisan by using legislation and regulation to create tactical advantages and disadvantages to non-governing political parties and independent candidates. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I will not be addressing all parts of this poorly conceived and wretchedly handicapped, malformed legislation.

Instead, I will focus on two critical areas that, speaking for myself and myself alone, I take direct umbrage with and have grave concerns about the long-term implications. I urge the government and all members of the House to reject the setting of fixed election dates and the imposition of any new restrictions upon the privileges and freedoms of the members of the Legislature, including their freedoms of speech.

I speak from experience not only as a past Elections Manitoba returning officer in the Lord Roberts area in 1999, but also as a past candidate for a major political party in the 1990 general election in Manitoba. Setting fixed election dates, which is the vogue thing to do these days, is a ruinous trend that further erodes our Westminster model of Canadian democracy and further entrenches American constitutional practices.

It is with great irony that I observe that an NDP government, whose party produced great parliamentarians and Canadian nationalists such as Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and Ed Schreyer, is now carrying out constitutional policies and practices that were first desired and conceived by the Reform Party. Fixed election dates Americanize our political scene and remove traditional prerogatives, which have been part of the Canadian and Westminster parliamentary landscapes since we started electing representatives in Canada.

438 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Madam Vice-Chair, this bill is a directed attack upon the base of Canadian democracy, that is, of responsible government. Governments, parliaments and legislatures have the enlightened and democratic right and responsibility to go to the people in a general election at any time that is needed. This includes in times of contentious and divisive legislation.

A recent exam ple of that was in 1988 when the federal government called a general election to resolve the issues with the proposed free trade treaty which resulted, at the time, in a deadlock between the House of Commons and the Senate. Legislatures and parliaments need the right to call general elections when needed and not a fixed timetable as they do in the United States, which has a different constitutional system. I thought the NDP was a party that was trying to protect Canadian political identity. Who's being served? The holiday schedules of a political class or the people of Manitoba?

Moreover, this proposed law reduces the life of a Legislature from a maximum of five years to the American standard of four years. The prerogative of dissolution has now been partially removed from the Crown and Lieutenant-Governor and is now added to the increasing work load of the bureaucracy. Just because Australia and other Canadian bodies are following this trend does not mean that Manitoba should do likewise. I thought we were innovators, not lemmings. The role of the opposition is another critical part of our democracy.

Too many times today we see regimes which curtail the rights of the opposition, and they curtail them drastically with ham-fisted, callous indifference. We witnessed this in Burma. We see this in Tibet, and we're aware of Zimbabwe, a country that was also once established under the Westminster model but has deviated from it so dramatically that it now is a byword for despots everywhere. In all fairness and reflec tion, Bill 37 is nowhere near the draconian and malevolent practices of the above-mentioned nation states, nor am I calling it that bad.

However, it is bad because it deviates from the traditional models of our constitutional monarchy and democracy in Canada. In a slight and dark grey bureaucratic manner, it tears away the free speech from our elected representatives to present their views and instead delegates it to a committee where the majority of the House or government will have sway. This methodology reduces MLAs to becoming mere government mouthpieces. It prevents members from using their privileges and rights to express partisan opinions and issues. However, what's wrong with being partisan?

Members are elected within partisan political parties. They're elected by constituents to hold these partisan opinions and deliver the messages to the government and the people. They are supposed to be partisan. It's in their traditional job description. John Diefenbaker, the great Canadian statesman, said: The duty of the opposition is to cleanse and purify those in office. How can members do this if they are shackled by this proposed legislation from giving their opinions to constituents? How can they oppose a wrongful action by an all-powerful government?

Not while they are bound hand, foot, and gagged by raising money to advertise their positions directly to the people due to these stale and repressive muzzles that are now in The Elections Finances Act and are coming back even further. This new bill gives unfair advantage to the government of the day regardless of party. Members of the Legislature have a duty to report their opinion to the constituents and to those outside of the Manitoba political scene. It needs to be reported to them effectively and in a timely manner.

With reduced availability of active people paying heed to day-to-day affairs of the Legislature and the media becoming more reliant upon press releases due to budget restrictions, Madam Vice-Chairperson, this is akin to giving the government a strategic advantage when communicating its message and entrenching all political party hierarchies at the expense of independent members and the occasional maverick. * (19:10) Canada's first Prime Minister, our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, said this about what happens when governments can try to do mischief when the right occasions occur.

He said: Given a big surplus, a surplus and extra majority and a weak opposition, you can debauch a committee of archangels. Governments pay huge sums of money for legal fees for activists to sue the very same governments. They fund non-profit groups to actively oppose public policies. These practices exist for the purpose of promoting fairness and equal voice being heard in the name of public good. The cost of these is phenomenal and no one elected these activists. We spend money for the voices to be heard.

Why are we suppressing the right of our partisan elected leaders to present their opinions to the people when they were elected to represent these people?

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 439 Last week our Premier (Mr. Doer) entertained the Ukrainian President and lauded our guest rightly as a champion of democracy. I'm certain that this international statesman visiting Manitoba could tell us about many of the tactics used by previous regimes to suppress opposition voices. Why are we suppressing our own opposition voices? Why are we not supporting the opposition's right to be heard instead of pretending we're a one-party state? Manitobans are accustomed to changing their governments. We're not Alberta.

Many members of the government may not remember or have experienced time in opposition. Remember that when this bill, if passed it can also be used on you too. I don't think it'd be right for your parliamentary privileges and freedoms to be suppressed either. Bill 37 is a further disaster on the Manitoba statute books and should be dropped or amended into something less poisonous. Thank you, members of the committee, for your time and attention. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Johnson. I'd love a written copy of the presentation.

There are a number of different things I'd like to keep from that. Just on the issue of fixed elections, because I think me and you might differ on this point, but I'm curious because you articulate things very well, and so I want to hear some of your rationale on it. I certainly have had some people–in the dealings that I've had in the past running in elections myself and helping others to run–indicate that they would like to know when the election is. It helps them as candidates to determine whether or not they're going to be candidates for one.

So they believe, or it's been expressed to me that we'd get better participation and maybe a higher quality of candidates if there was a set election date. The other issue is more of an operational issue, but those who run the elections in terms of enumerations have said to me that it's nice to have the set date because it helps them in the enumeration process.

I know the riding that I represent sometimes is problematic because it grows so quickly that the enumerations are very poor because they can't find all the new areas that have developed in the short period of time, and they can't start the enumeration too early because so many more develop than before they actually get to the election. So it's been indicated to me that the set election date portion of it would be helpful.

I agree with you on all the other portions of the bill, as you've described them, but just on that can you indicate whether or not you think there'd be some value in set elections on those two points? Mr. Johnson: Pardon me, Madam Vice-Chair, at the risk of coming across a little bit hard-nosed on this, I would probably say that candidates are salespeople selling their message to the people of their constituencies. A salesperson does not choose the time and place when their customer is going to hear their sales pitch. I think candidates need to remember that and remember, we're serving the people.

What this means is that if an election is called it's at the people's convenience, not necessarily the candidates. If a candidate, and having b een a past candidate, you wait the process. Is it going to happen, isn't it; and it can be tedious. But that's part of the system. We're trying to benefit the people not necessarily the parties or the campaign teams. With respect to the enumeration process, and having been at a very difficult riding to enumerate in 1999 when I was having to do that and had a few bumps along the way, I'll tell you the enumeration process can be painful and can be hard to do.

However, I consider it as a necessary evil. I feel that it's better to do that, to have the enumeration process as it is, rather than upset the apple cart. Our system works. Why do we need to wreck it by monkeying with it? Mr. Goertzen: Thank you for your comments. I do appreciate the spirit in which they're given. You mention–you're talking about some political philosophies and different political parties. You referenced the Reform Party and some of the philosophies they had.

One of the things that the Reform Party was strong on was free votes for Members of Parliament, except for money bills, except for confidence votes. Yesterday, we had a comment from the Member for Wellington (Ms. Marcelino) who's not with us tonight but who was here last night; she indicated that not every member of the NDP caucus actually agreed with Bill 37. Do you think that this would be a good bill to have a free vote on, so we could see how all members of the Legislature–if it comes to the Legislature in its current form–truly fe el about the bill?

440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Mr. Johnson: Madam Vice-Chairperson, in the spirit of the original Westminster Parliament, which our Parliamentary system has, we have evolved into being too rigid with the whip system in Canada. This has been long-cited by both the Reform Party and other parties as being a concern. However, it's like bell the cat. Who's going to put the bell around pussycat's neck? As far as directly with your specific question on the free vote, I think it would be very nice.

However, like most caucuses, once the decision is made in most political parties' caucuses to back a bill, everybody needs to close rank and support their political party's decision, regardless of their own personal feelings. It would be nice to have a free vote, but I don't think it's going to happen. Mr. Lamoureux: I just wanted to get your thoughts on the whole issue of freedom of speech. If this bill passes un-amended–you might have heard the content of envelopes I was talking about earlier to other previous speakers, but this is actually what the process is.

I figure out what it is I'd like to put into an envelope; I put it into the envelope; I give it to a civil servant. The government MLAs, then, will decide whether or not I can use it and, as opposed to the government telling it, they'll go back to a civil servant who will then tell me whether or not I can actually use it. Technically, there is an appeal. You can go back to that same group that said, no, I can't put it in the mail. At no point in time am I provided an opportunity to even appeal my case. How do you respond to that, if this legislation passes as it is? Mr. Johnson: Mr.

Lamoureux, at the risk of using some bombastic language, I would consider that to be utterly atrocious, reprehensible and unacceptable. I would view this, first off, from a tactical point of view, as a delay tactic. It's very easy for papers to take a little bit longer to go through the system. An unscrupulous government may feel compelled to wait a few days till the issue dies, or to take some of the momentum out of it. That's correct. I view this as censorship. I view this as obscene.

I view that, if the government chooses not to pay for franking expenses, then political parties and private members should have the right to fundraise and not be shackled by the oppressiveness of The Elections Finances Act. I also would see that this is even more tightly controlled than the civil service is controlled at present by the government Communications Branch. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much for your responses and for your presentation. Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your time, Madam Vice-Chairperson. Would y ou like me to leave my presentation with the Clerk's office?

I'm sorry, Madam Vice-Chair. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Yes, Mr. Johnson, that's okay. Could you leave your presentation with the Clerk and then get it photocopied? The committee calls Mr. Keam. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, Mr. Keam, sir. Welcome, thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation, sir? * (19:20) Mr. David Keam (Private Citizen): I do, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: We'll just wait a few moments until it's distributed, and then I'll give you the signal to proceed. You may proceed when you're ready, Mr. Keam. Mr.

Keam: I do have a written place to start, but I probably will go back and forth from it. My name is David Keam and I am an interested member of the public, in the operations of government and politics. I started out being interested in government, I think, when I was nine years old. I had a paper route. I used to get up at six o'clock in the morning and deliver the Globe and Mail. I used to read it from cover to cover pretty much before I delivered it and went off to school.

I've always believed that politics is an honourable business, both sides of the House, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Legislature present for their public service and, I understand, for even allowing me to speak today as I have received probably nine phone calls in the last three days telling me when different meetings are being held and when the meeting might go on till. I understand yesterday I was dropped from the list because of not appearing twice, although I did appear once or twice before and wasn't able to

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 441 speak. I was supposedly, now I've been told, the first citizen ever to be put back on the list. Thank you. I thank you very much. I don't plan to disrespect this committee in any way, shape or form. I'm thankful that we live in a democracy where the greatest harm we want to do each is to filibuster a bill. Long ago, we put away our guns and decided to talk to each other across an aisle. Again, when we don't get our way we have replaced duels with yelling.

I have recently traveled to South America to countries who, 10 years ago, had civil wars, and came home thankful for everything from building inspectors to city by-laws. Imagine, if you would, if we could teach, and we are now trying to teach the Afghanis and the Iraqis to put down their guns, sit in a room like this, and talk to each other. Then, when all hell breaks loose, we'd like them to yell and ring bells and filibuster.

It saddens me when the public or the media or any member of government officials of any stripe says that politicians are acting like children when they are in the House of Parliament or in the Legislature doing their job no matter how loud it is or how long the bells ring or the filibuster lasts. This is the rules of democracy that people have died so that we can solve our problems this way. This is how it works and this is the best system in the world.

My question to this committee is, do you think if you took Bill 37 to either Afghanistan or Iraq and presented this form of democracy to either the Taliban or the Kurds or the Sunnis–do you think at this time you'd be able to get them to lay down their arms or not? Let's say the committee as a whole, not either side, you are the Taliban and, for this purpose, the opposition.

The government of Afghanistan can spend any amount it likes, telling the population how great the government is and the things that they would like to do, and the opposition can spend the equivalent of 575 barrels of oil a year to tell the public their ideas and ho w great they are. The government can and will appoint a neutral partisan committee of people it trusts, and I think we all know that my partisans and your partisans and my neutral and your neutral are different, and that's the way the system is.

Although I have great respect for this man, we've met many times, we are partisan and neutral to our own neutralities. There's nothing wrong with that and that's the way it's supposed to be. The government can and will appoint a neutral, non-partisan committee of people it trusts and this committee will read all the communications of the Taliban and the Kurds and the Sunnis and it will decide if it neutral and non-partisan. If it is, it will let it pass and if it's not, it will say so and make it change it.

Now, I know the $75,000 is one budget of communications yearly between elections for each of the opposition parties, and the MLA mailing or communications budget is another and is separate. But what I want to know is, do you think Jack Layton could take this to Afghanistan as a starting point for negotiations with the Taliban, or would he not get to first base, maybe not even in his own mind? All the world watches right now as Robert Mugabe cracks down on his opposition with guns and fears and violence.

I wonder if he had a chance to see how we propose to look after our opposition in this country, if he might not either prefer this method of handling him or her–you hand out a microphone but no radio waves to hear it–or would he be able to say to himself, I am a dictator; the entire world calls me a dictator and knows I am a dictator. If this can be done in Canada by a duly elected government, then a dictator can do much worse and what is the word of Canada to mean. I don't know if it's right, but can I ask questions of the committee at all? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Keam: Not at all. Later, okay.

Yes, leave please. I'd like to have one question asked of the committee. I'd like to know if they know what it costs to run a television commercial in CTV news or what it costs to run a television commercial or a radio commercial. You can't– [interjection] well, I'll tell you later, yes, I will. Imagine, if you would, I, as a businessman–who spends more than $75,000 in two months to wax, some would say, not so elegantly on something nowhere near as important as the exchange of political values–had my budget set by my competition and my scripts vetted for their neutrality. Okay.

I started with nothing, you know, I started with nothing and spent more as it became available, but today my budget is probably 5 percent of the millions spent in this market to move mattresses and yet it is at least a sizable sum. The $50,000 now allotted to the opposition and the $75,000 as prop osed is an affront to democracy as the government has no such limit to spend

442 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 taxpayers' money to get its ideas across or wax elegantly or accomplish whatever side–it's just a matter of whatever side of the voting line you're on. This is not how this very important arrangement should be dealt with. Hillary Clinton spent $400,000 per day in her failed bid for the White House or $215 million in 18 months and the Queen's loyal opposition is only allowed to spend $50,000 per year between elections to get a very important second view of things to the public. There is a saying I have about business, if you do not advertise, you do not exist.

I don't want to believe that the members opposite or the other, the government–but I do believe that they probably understand this concept as well, and they are trying very hard to make the opposition non-existent in the minds of the general public. I had a copy of Bill 37 given to me four or five days ago when I was here waiting for my turn. The opposition was filibustering, I suppose, so I didn't get my turn, but I'm not upset because I realize that's how the system is. That's how it's done. That's the only power left, you know, to the opposition is to not let something happen.

Then I came back and I think I wasn't–I didn't get up again, but, you know, if I gave my staff of 30 people this much information at one time and asked them to go out and accomplish it, there would be at least a much larger chance of something getting done wrong than breaking this up into smaller portions. In closing, I would like to ask the government not to pass this bill into law, and if they do pass it, the first thing I suggest they do is to give it to Jack Layton as a platform for his desire to have talks with the Taliban and let's see if he makes it back before the next session of Parliament.

You can't say to your opposition you have freedom of speech and yet you cannot spend any money to make that speech happen. A speech is not free; speech costs money, and if you want to buy a radio commercial with CJOB, you know, it's at least $150, $60 to $100 to $90 to $150 for a 30-second to a 60-second spot. If you want a 30-second spot in CTV news, it can run you as high as a thousand dollars, and if the government itself–if you were limited to spending $50,000 to getting the idea of Spirited Energy across, you know very well you couldn't do it. * (19:30) Advertising is how we communicate today.

Advertising is democracy, and you can't say to somebody, here's a microphone, but I'm going to pull the plug on it and then you just sit there and speak and say as much as you want. Then, if you don't cross into hate speech, we won't get after you, too. But, you know, there's no such thing as a non- partisan committee.

There's nothing wrong with being a partisan, but the public has to know who picks its partisans and be interested in who picks their partisans and be serious about picking them because there's no better way of doing this, but, once you get elected, you've got to leave the system for other people to use it. In closing, I would like to ask the government again not to pass it.

Democracy was born when men– and in the beginning it was mostly men, although if you ever have a chance to see the movie Amazing Grace you will find that no man accomplishes much without a great woman beside him–put down their guns and wrote on paper rules they would live by. Then they agreed to yell at each other to solve their problems, and then fight wars to defend that piece of paper and that idea, and that if you remove money from the procedure, you have made it impossible to get any message across other than your own.

That is what many of our forefathers died to make sure never happened to us fro m a foreign power, and it should not happen to us from our own government. You can't take money out of the system and then pretend the system is free. If the Americans can spend $400,000 a day I think that the opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, should be allowed to at least spend as much as The Brick spends beating up on me or beating up on each other. You know, there has to be some reason for the number that you pick, and $150,000 isn't enough and $50,000 is not enough and $75,000 is not enough.

That's my written speech to the committee, and I thank you that we as citizens have the right to come and stand here. I'd like some questions from this side, too, because you–I've been watching for four days and– [interjection] Well, you know it's all–which one is Mrs. Brick? An Honourable Member: Well, that's irrelevant. Mr. Keam: No, no, okay. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Keam, sir, I have to take control of this meeting–

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 443 Mr. Keam: Yes, you can. I will give it to you. Mr. Chairperson: It's the committee's right to ask questions of the presenters, sir. That's our standard practice in this Legislative Assembly and, since your presentation is concluded I believe, thank you for your presentation here this evening and open up the floor for questions of the presenter. Mr. Goertzen: I do have questions, but I'm willing to cede to the government if there are any questions opposite. Maybe they'll think of some other questions they have, and we'll give them an opportunity.

We even offer leave if they have any questions for the presenter. Thank you very much for coming in, Mr. Keam. I think we made a good decision last night by asking that you be placed back on the list. You brought some perspectives that we haven't heard through all of the different presentations. You do a very good job of coining phrases that become part of the lexicon in Manitoba and more broadly. That's a credit to your ability to advertise, and we as political parties also need that as well, but you indicated that an ad on CKY would be about $1,000 to run that ad. That doesn't include production, I'm assuming.

If you wanted to produce, you know, a respectable–an ad, do you know what that cost would be? Mr. Keam: Mr. Chairman, a low budget presentation, if you're starting from scratch with a film crew and no talent wh atsoever, just yourselves, no talent being no paid talent, it can easily be $3,000.

I recently had some ads made that were just simply cutting and pasting from high resolution photographs and that cost considerably less, but if you want to have a person walk through a room and film it and have makeup so that you don't look crazy in your high definition television sets and all of that nature, $3,000 gets you absolutely no jingle, no talent, just yourself–and your own written script, too. So, if you want to have any professional talent whatsoever, then the sky is the limit. Mr. Goertzen: And you'll find us a slogan.

Do you come up with that on your own, or do you have somebody come from an ad agency on that? Mr. Keam: No, I came up with that on my own. I had a second and a half left one day and I needed to fill it on a clock and that's how it came up. I daresay that if someone would have bought me lunch somewhere along the line and–you know, this is a joke, but there's some truth to it. I think for a steak at Hy's we could have saved the government a bit of money on some of its advertising. Mr. Goertzen: You certainly did better with yours than with Spirited Energy, that's for sure.

Just one last question, then I'll let the government members ask questions. On the issue of the $75,000 limitation. One of the questions I haven't been able to get answered by anybody on the government side or any presenters, when we create legislation in Manitoba, and I'm assuming anywhere in Canada, it should be to solve a problem or to correct some sort of an error. Nobody's been able to answer the question of what it is that the government is trying to correct by putting in that limitation. It's not taxpayer's money that'll be spent, it'll be party money they'd be raising, privately, under the current system.

Can you think of what it is that the government is trying to cure by putting a limitation on political party advertising between elections? Mr. Keam: Mr. Chair, I will say that the most highly paid person in any media environment is the person who sells the space on either the radio station or the television station. The lowest paid person is the person who writes the commer cials, especially in radio. They're usually new graduates from one of our prestigious schools, but they are still very new to the job. Communication is extremely important.

If I spent as much money as I spend with somebody who doesn't understand my business as well as I do, saying my message for me, I daresay I wouldn't be able to get where I am today. The only reason you take money away from somebody is to stop them from having the absolute ability to actually open their mouths and be heard. You cannot spend $50,000. Now, if I understand correctly, then the person–Mrs. Brick from Brick's Fine Furniture, is a member of this community– An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Keam: From where? An Honourable Member: She's not from there. Mr.

Keam: Okay, so this is irrelevant then, if she's not from there. An Honourable Member: Yeah. No conflict. Mr Keam: No conflict. Anyway, a lot more people than me should understand that you must have– money is the oil of democracy. You come to me and

444 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 you ask me for funds, and if I say no that should be the only thing between you and me. I don't want to be American rich. I don't want to hand out the same amount of money as Americans do. I don't have the ability. I don't want my system to let me be American rich. But if I'm only allowed to spend $1,000 a year to give to political parties, then if everybody in the province handed out a thousand bucks, you wouldn't have too much money. We all know that everybody is not going to. So there is no problem that needs to be solved.

In business, there are two ways to solve a problem. You can find an imaginary one and go and hunt it down and then that screws up creativity. People often say to me, well, how many business plans have you written and why did you do this and why did you do that, and I haven't written any business plans. I'm sorry, I just formulated an idea, and went and did it. Most of them worked and some of them didn't. If you don't have money, you can't accomplish anything. When you take somebody's money away from them, you make them silent. Mr. Derkach: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Keam.

I like the way in which you presented this because it brings it right down to a level that I think any Manitoban can really appreciate and understand. As in business, in politics our major job is to communicate with the people that we represent. In asking the government, over time, what their rationale is to limit third-party advertising, to limit our ability to communicate with our constituents, to have a censorship put on our direct mails–that censorship, of course, is done by a committee that has a majority of government members on it.

All of this seems to be so undemocratic, and it flies in the face of what we try to promote in the Legislature and throughout our province. Yet we haven't been able to get any answers fro m the government as to why any of this is being done, except the Premier (Mr. Doer) said that he took offence at us sending mail to unheld ridings. He called it partisan mailings to unheld ridings.

Yet, if I'm a critic for Education, I think it's my responsibility to send information into unheld ridings to all Manitobans to ensure that government is held accountable. * (19:40) What do you think the motivation would be from this government to try to limit our ability to communicate? Is it to win the next election or is it simply to continue to control whatever happens in this province? Mr. Keam: Well, Mr. Chair, I mean, I don't have the ability to impugn what they're trying to figure, but I'll put it to you this way. I send communication into unheld ridings every day.

I am attempting to convert somebody from buying from someplace else to buying from me. I think that's your job. I'm trying to get an idea across and ideas cost money to get across. If it's honestly true that people in the government individually do not know what an advertisement costs, then you can't sit here and pass this the way it is. You've just got to have the fundamentals of the concept down before you can put this out.

You know, if I just went to the bank and said, hey, you know, give me X amount of dollars, they always come back to me and ask me for at least one page that proves that I have an understanding of what I'm going to do with that amount of money that they give me. Really, they want to know what my cost is for everything I'm going to spend it on. If I was proposing legislation that would restrict the Queen's loyal opposition, if that's an official office still these days, from opening its mouth, I would really want to be able to state quite emphatically why.

I would just want to have a reason, and I would want to ram that reason down your throat until you understood that reason. I would be able to make sure that that reason was coherent, and I would understand most parts of that reason before I stood up and mentioned it. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I don't have a problem if Mr. Bidhu wants to go ahead of me just to make sure that he has the opportunity to– An Honourable Member: Mr. Jha. Mr. Lamoureux: –I'm sorry, Mr. Jha. Mr. Chairperson: You'll need to go through the entire list first, sir. Your turn, sir. Mr. Lamoureux: My only concern is that Mr.

Jha be provided the opportunity, the Member for Radisson, to ask a question. I want to take advantage of the expertise that you have in advertising. If you're going to have a set dollar for annual spending and try to put it into, I guess, maybe a provincial perspective, every media outlet covers the release of the provincial budget. They're all here, and then they report on it. After the report is done, then you'll see the government will spend, if you include research, just over $200,000 on

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 445 advertising its budget. So it's just to give you a figure. That's what I go by, right? This government spends $200,000 to promote its budget. If you're going to have a fixed annual budget for parties to advertise, do you have any idea in terms of what it is that you would set it at if you were the Premier? Mr.

Keam: My thought process for my business is that every single year, I try to spend more money on advertising than the year before and less as a percentage, but still more money because, again, I'm competing against companies that are REITs, that are publicly traded, that are the same degree of power between–oh, slightly less, but only because of imagination–between the government and an opposition. These people could give away mattresses for six months if they wanted to. If the government is spending $200,000 to promote its budget, I can tell you this. News, these days, is entertainment.

They don't get into deep issues. They don't even call themselves news stations any more. They call themselves news entertainment stations. Deep issues are seldom dealt with, and, if the MLAs are stopped from dealing with deep issues too, no wonder it takes less and less of the population to get a majority government of the voting population. People are losing interest, and one of the reasons they're losing interest is because it's being continually dumbed down. The people doing the reporting are younger and younger all the time.

It's got to be left to somebody who’s professional to have the opportunity to actually get out there and state their own case. It can't come through a third party all the time, like it does through either a committee or a news reporter. You have to have the ability to state your own case, and the money to do it. Two hundred thousand is a tiny amount of money. What's the budget of the Province? Nine billion?

Well, 7 percent of that's an awful lot of money; 1 percent of that, half a percent of that would give you a reasonable advertising budget, considering you're attempting to say something obviously extremely important. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just first of all, I'd like to indicate that you and I have one thing in common. We both delivered The Globe and Mail , actually at 6 o'clock as well, but I also delivered the Thompson Citizen and Winnipeg Tribune at a more civilized hour. So I appreciate that.

Actually, you focussed a lot on certain aspects about–I know we had a pres enter earlier talk about the fixed election dates. I'm just curious as to your position, whether you think we should have a fixed date or a flexible date. Mr. Keam: Mr. Chair, I disagree with even my federal colleagues, per se. I disagree with it. I think the concept of the government having the ability to bring down the House or bring down the Legislature, whenever it wants to solve a critical issue, is what you are elected to do.

If the opposition finds itself with nothing else to do but filibuster forever, and you can't get your position across, you should be left with the ability to go to the public at any time. Making things more convenient for bureaucrats, or people who want to run for office, doesn't pale in comparison to the government being able to be able to say, okay, enough's enough. Today, we go. I want to defend this issue; this is a big enough issue that today we go. I disagree with even a fixed election date per se. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you for your presentation.

I know that you, as a good business person, and any other good business person knows that repetition is recognition. If you're limited in the amount of money that you can spend, you're limited in the repetition that you can do and you're limited in the recognition that you get. I know that this government knows that very well. So I believe that the curtailing of the amount that can be spent on advertising is deliberately aimed at lowering the recognition of opposition parties. I would just like to ask you, what would you do if that happened to you in your business? Mr. Keam: What's actually happening, Mr.

Chair, is that the recognition of the politicians, period, is being diminished. The recognition of the public that politics is an honourable business is being diminished. Can you give me just the gist of that one more time? I never get nervous; I'm a tiny bit. Mrs. Taillieu: No, I just said that, when any good business–recognition is recognition. Floor Comment: I suppose. Mr. Chairperson: Sir. Just one moment, sir. You have to wait to allow the Chair to address you by

446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 your name to allow the folks behind us to turn your microphone on, so you can be recorded. Floor Comment: Okay. Mr. Chairperson: So, if you'd just bear with us for a moment. Floor Comment: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Taillieu, have you finished your question? Mrs. Taillieu: The point I was making is that repetition is recognition, and you don't have repetition, you cut off the recognition. If that happened to you in your business by your competitors, what would you do? * (19:50) Mr. Keam: Mr.

Chair, I have been told by the second most recognized vo ice in the province, who claims to be the most second most recognized voice in the province, Charles Adler, that I am the third most recognized voice in the province. Well, two things: that's wonderful for me, but it isn't all that good for you guys. Honest to God, all I do is move mattresses for a living. I'm just a business person and I'm not demeaning myself for any purpose other than–your job is far more important than mine. I don't know whether you take it as seriously as you should in realizing that you cannot remove repetition.

At $1,000 a crack, you get 75 commercials on CTV News or you could go and buy a radio station with a one-share and get those commercials for $15 a piece, but you might as well burn your $15. Buying good quality advertising costs far less money than buying cheap advertising. Without a reasonable budget, you're wasting all of your money. If somebody came to me and said, look, you got $75,000 to spend over the next year, how do you want to spend it? You might as well put it in a pile and burn it. You'd get more attention then you would by actually going out and buying advertising with it.

You can't accomplish anything with that small amount of money. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Keam, for being here and for putting the whole thing in the perspective of the Taliban. I think that was a very interesting way to approach this because that kind of an exaggerated view, certainly, I think, makes this a very interesting way to look at it. Just one question for you. If we were the government and the NDP were in opposition, do you think they would have approved this legislation? Mr. Keam: I think if they had any due diligence, they'd fight it too.

Let's f ace it, this is just not how you run a democracy, plain and simple. You have no right to tell me, five years from now, if I want to run to replace one of you, that after I successfully accomplish that goal, that I have more ability to get my message across now to se ll a mattress, than I do to get an idea across as complicated as Crocus or a hydro line on one side of a province or another, or any other idea that is the purview of government that is so far more important than what I have to offer.

You just shouldn't have the ability to tell me, as the opposition, what to say, how to say it, where it goes or who can read it. Well, that might be next. I never would have thought that it would get down to $50,000 a year. Then to think, well, now I've got to pass it through a non-partis an committee. There's no such thing as a non-partisan committee; you got chosen because you were a partisan of one person or another and that's not wrong either. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might look shocked, but you've waved me off before. Thank you very much for your presentation.

I really appreciate some of your comparisons in your presentation as well. Over a period of time now, we've had a number of people present. One of the presenters was a former NDP MLA from times gone by, back in the early '70s, one of the main organizers of the first NDP government that got elected. This might seem as a bit of a surprise but he had said that money doesn't buy votes, money doesn't buy elections, ideas and people buy elections. Would you say that he was absolutely right or partly right? Mr.

Keam: I would like to see anybody get any idea across today without the ink to do it, the money to buy the ink to do it, the money to buy the radio waves to do it. We are supposedly entitled to the CBC to get our points across and things of that nature. But, in these avenues, for our ability to get our points across, they want money or they want something in exchange for allowing you to speak in those places. Why doesn't the Legislature have its own radio station? Why doesn't the Legislature have its own television station? Why is it that I have to get all of

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 447 my–I know I can sit and I do sit sometimes and watch CPAC. People think I'm nuts–for more reasons than one. You cannot have an election without money. If you can, well, then, give everybody zero and let's go. Give everybody nothing and let's go. Then we'll see how the ideas really transpire. Mr. Graydon: Then, in that context, do you agree then that the $1.25 vote tax that's being proposed in this legislation is the right way to raise money? Mr. Keam: Mr.

Chair, I was phon ed during the last provincial election by the government and asked if I would make a donation to their party during the election. They had just passed a law allowing for another holiday in February, and I was just a little bit upset at that point in time, having to shell another set of thousands of dollars for that purpose. I said no, that I didn't feel that I wanted to make a contribution at that time. I think that, if ideas buy elections, then ideas also buy contributions. People don't have the slightest idea how much of their contribution comes back to them from the government.

All it is is the opportunity to actually direct your tax dollars somehow. If people had a better understanding that a contribution to a political party is just your ability to actually push your tax dollars in a certain direction, maybe more people would do it. I think that's the idea that we should be getting out to people. If you agree with what I'm saying, then hand me a cheque. That's what I go to the p ublic for every day. If you like what I'm doing, if you like my product, hand me a cheque.

The moment they quit phoning me and complaining about my commercials and quit coming in to buy stuff, then my ideas will go away. But demanding that the system pay for your ideas when the people that they're being presented to won't is wrong. Mr. Graydon: I would like to conclude with one question, but I'd also like to bring to your attention the individual that made that particular statement, at the beginning and some time ago now, in this committee was Sam Uskiw. He was a founding member of the NDP.

He said that he had personally put his signature to a loan of $250,000, personally asked the honourable Premie r, Ed Schreyer, to come back and lead the party. And he did that. They did it to a victory. He said at the same time, it was ideas, that it wasn't money. But he also said exactly what you have just said, that when you take money without earning it, it's really wrong. It's not the right way to go. We do, I'm not sure if you know, but we do get a certain amount of money from Elections Manitoba or from the government through Elections Manitoba after the election.

Once every four years we get reimbursed for 50 percent of our expenses. Do you have any problem with that? Mr. Keam: Well, let's put it this way. Mr. Chair, that's the system that, again, you have to have raised that money from the public. You have to have spent that money given to you from the public to then be allowed to have Elections Canada give some of it back to you. That's the system. I don't know how long that system's been running around for, but that system treats everybody honestly.

If you raise a million dollars and spend a million dollars and get half a million back, then your ideas were bought and sold in the public marketplace, and you benefited from your ideas being bought and sold. * (20:00) I don't even know if it would be legal anymore today to put your name down on a $250,000 debt to start a political party. I don't know. It might be wrong these days.

But the other thing that happens with this $1.25 vote tax is you could end up eventually with a banana republic where everybody who has the ability to get 100,000 votes or 10,000 votes in Manitoba–you had better have something pretty special going on, I would imagine, to get 100,000 votes–but you're giving money to everybody with any sort of idea that the government would buy. Again, a totally separate deal. But you find out what art the government buys in comparison to the art that business buys. It's totally different.

Government buys all kinds of ideas that the public itself doesn't buy, and if you have a party that comes up and says, well, what I'd like is to make marijuana legal, which we've had, that party, they are entitled to get paid to exist by the government. The government shouldn't be paying political parties to exist. The people who want those ideas expressed should be willing to foot the bill themselves, and then if Elections Manitoba or Elections Canada wants to give back a rebate based on what was raised, that's the system the way it's been–I don't know–for 25, or 30, or 50 years. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Keam, for your presentation here this evening, for answering–

448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Mr. Lamoureux: I believe that the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), when I asked my question, I made sure that I thought I had suggested that he should be able to ask his questions. So, if we ran out of time, there should've been leave to allow him to ask the questions. Mr. Chairperson: No, Mr. Lamoureux, it's not a question of time. As Chairperson, I usually look for signals, if a person raises their hand or gives me the wave-off signal, with respect to asking questions.

So I have to trust that members know what they're doing when they give an indi cation to the Chair with respect to asking questions of the presenters, and I'll leave it at that. But I thank you, Mr. Keam, for your presentation here this evening, sir. Thank you for your patience and for sticking with us here for your advice this evening. Thank you. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Yes, Mr. Goertzen, on a point of order. Mr. Goertzen: I hesitate to raise this point of order, and I regret having to do it.

But I feel it's not only my right as a legislator here but also my responsibility, and that I'm duty bound in fact to raise the point of order on behalf of all members, not just the members on my side of the aisle or the House, indeed, all members. I'd referenced for you, Mr. Chairperson, and for all members of the committee, if they would look at Beauchesne's, at

section 75, which references freedom of speech and the freedom of speech of every member to speak here at this committee. If you look at the reference, you'll see that in fact the provision indicates that freedom is, in fact, a fundamental right of a member of Parliament or, of course, a member of the Legislature, would be the least questioned and most fundamental right that we have. So I have an obligation to try to ensure that right is maintained and defended here in the committee, which is, of course, an extension of the Legislature as a whole.

I know that there are other members who will be able to speak to this issue. I want to tell the committee what I saw, though, over the last number of minutes. We had a great presentation from Mr. Keam, and during the course of that, the Member for Radisson put up his hand dutifully, I think, in response perhaps to Mr. Keam's ambition or request for opposition–or government members, I'm sorry–to raise questions. I give credit to the Member for Radisson because he responded that he clearly had something of importance to ask Mr. Keam. I know the Member for Radisson's an honourable man.

I think he can add a lot to the debate, both here in the committees. He's very rarely given the chance in the Legislature. I find that is disgraceful on behalf of the government. I think if they would let him participate in debates more, we would all benefit from that. We would all be better as a result of his participation in the debate, whether it's committee or in the Legislature. But, for whatever reason, and I can't begin to know why, the member is shut down repeatedly in the House. But what I saw in committee, Mr.

Chairperson, and it's particularly germane to this point of order, is that the Member for Radisson raised his hand, wanted to get on the speakers' list. I believe you probably put him on that speakers' list. Then I saw him have a conversation with the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell), and it looked like there was some sort of a dispute about whether or not– [interjection]. There was some sort of a dispute. Then it wasn't long after that I saw the Member for Radisson write something out on a piece of paper and bring it to the Attorney General (Mr.

Chomiak), and the Attorney General shook his head in a negative fashion with a negative tone. Then the Member for Radisson returned to his seat– An Honourable Member: I shook my head in a negative fashion with a negative tone? Mr. Goertzen: Well, it was such a hard shake that it emitted a tone, Mr. Chairperson, and then the Member for Radisson returned to his seat and waved off his question. That's exactly what I saw, those three events: the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) involved in the conversation and then the Member for Radisson write something out on paper, bring it to the Attorney General (Mr.

Chomiak), the Attorney General shake it off so harshly that a negative tone was emitted from his head, and then the Member for Radisson return to his seat and wave off his question. I don't know what other conclusion I could draw from those events other than the Member for Radisson had in his mind and put to paper a question that he wanted to ask Mr. Keam. He indicated that initially, then had consultation with the Member for Brandon East. I see he's got his hand up again. I hope he's able to speak. [interjection]. Well,

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 449 you can't point of order my point of order. [interjection] Well, you can do that after. He'll judge and then–I have some idea of the rules here. Then, Mr. Chairperson, what other conclusion can we draw, but that the Member for Radisson had a question that he wanted to raise–and I know other members of this committee saw the events unfold as well. You know, I might have let it slide and not raise it as a point of order had it not been for the fact that the same set of facts, the same set of events happened just a couple of days ago.

Now, the players were a little different. We had the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan), who shut down the Member for Radisson from asking a question, so it just seems like nobody on the government caucus seems willing to allow the Member for Radisson to speak, which, I think, is unfortunate, not just from the democratic perspective, but because I think that the member is an honourable member who can add to the debate of the Legislature and make some good points. I might have thought that , with the Premier (Mr.

Doer) enjoying his Mexican vacation, there might have been a more democratic tone to the government caucus. [interjection] Well, I thank the Government House Leader for confirming that the Premier's on the beach and, in fact, with the fact that the Premier is away on the sands of Mexico that there may have been more of a democratic feel here. It's obvious that there are a number of members who refuse to allow the Member for Radisson to exercise his democratic right under

section 75 of Beauchesne's under our rules. I'm obligated–some might wonder, well, why am I raising this point of order as opposed to the government members? I actually have an obligation to defend the rules of the Legislature for all members. I know the Member for Radisson himself would probably stand up and defend–[interjection] Well, I do. You know, I have a soft spot in my heart fo r the Member for Radisson and I want to hear him speak, Mr. Chairperson, but I have an obligation. I'm duty bound to raise the point of order, to defend it, and I would do the same if it was for the Member for Brandon East.

I would defend his duty to speak. An Honourable Member: What about the Member for Thompson, then? Mr. Goertzen: I would do it for the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the Crown prince of filibuster. I would do it for him. I would do it for the Member for Flin Flon (M r. Jennissen), for the Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), who may or may not be a part owner in the Brick's Fine Furniture. I would do it for the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk).

For any committee member here tonight and beyond, I would stand up for their democratic right to speak and to be heard because I think, as Beauchesne's indicates to us, it is one of the most fundamental and unchallenged rights that we have as a Legislature. Because, as the presenter said to us just a few minutes ago, if we're not able to freely express our opinions, if we as MLAs aren't able to freely express our opinions, what other function do we have?

You know, what other core role is it that we are intended to fulfil as MLAs if it's not to speak our point of view and to express all that we and our constituents hold dear on a particular issue? I know the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha) represents as many people as I do–in a different part of the province, obviously, but around 20,000 people–and those 20,000 people expect him to give voice to their concerns. They expect him to come to the Legislature and put their concerns on–for him to put their concerns on the record. I believe he would, if he was allowed to.

If the government muzzle was taken off of the Member for Radisson, if the shackles were undone, if the Premier would return from his fiesta in Mexico and allow the Member for Radisson and other members to speak. * (20:10) It doesn't just apply to the Member for Radisson. You know, I really haven't heard from the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) on this committee either. Now, he hasn't been as bold to try to ask a question. He's been in the caucus long enough to know that it's not a road worth travelling down.

He's probably experienced the heavy hand of government in the past and doesn't want to go through that exercise in humiliation again. So he's probably not able to actually put his hand up to ask a question. He's learned in the past that that's not a fruitful way for him to go. We saw yesterday, but, you know–and this is an instructive point. The instructive point being that, when a member of the gov ernment, an opposition member is allowed to speak, some very interesting things come from that exercise. In fact, yesterday the Member for Wellington (Ms.

Marcelino) indicated to us that there were members of the government caucus that actually didn't agree with Bill 37, but– An Honourable Member: She did not.

450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 Mr. Goertzen: Well, she did, and the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) can review Hansard. What she said was that there were members who didn't agree with the bill, but they came to a consensus from the caucus, and consensus–and consensus–[interjection] Consensus is code for the Premier (Mr. Doer) going in and saying, this is the way you're going to vote, and then they reached a consensus. But, you know, that's truly not, that's truly not a definition.

Then, of course, after they reached the consensus by the Premier putting down the heavy hammer, then he takes off and he wheels up on WestJet and off to Mexico to spend the next few days enjoying tequilas and watching the sunset come up over the ocean–the sunrise come up over the ocean. Sorry, and probably the sunset as well. My guess is he probably saw the sunset and the sunrise all in one night. But that's another issue, Mr. Chairperson. The point is, and this is serious.

It's a serious point, is that, when government backbenchers are actually allowed to speak, as the Member for Wellington did yesterday and as the Member for Radisson tried to do now twice at this committee, there are some instructive things that come forward. You know, I always suspect ed it. It always was a suspicion of mine that many opposition– [interjection] You know, we should actually check and see if that closed sign is on the door, but we'll do that later on.

There's always–I always suspected there were a number of different members of the government who didn't agree with Bill 37, who didn't actually think it was a good piece of legislation, and that was confirmed. Mr. Chair, that was confirmed by the honourable Member for Wellington, who I appreciated came here. Now I noticed that she's not here tonight. I'm sure that she'll be punished for being so forthright in her comments. They wouldn't dare let her come and ask questions again because I'm sure that the government would have felt that what she said was embarrassing, and they shouldn't. They shouldn't.

You know, I asked a very genuine question of a presenter here earlier this evening about free votes. An Honourable Member: Which one? Mr. Goertzen: Well, of all of them, actually. I had genuine questions on all of them, and the question was about having free votes, democratic principle about where you don't have the confidence vote, where it's not a money bill, where it's not the budget– An Honourable Member: Yeah, like Stephen Harper. Mr. Goertzen: Stephen Harper has had–Stephen Harper has had free votes in Parliament, and I'm not sure– An Honourable Member: How many, one? Mr.

Goertzen: Well, you know, you might be surprised, but I don't spend a lot of time looking and focussing on the federal scene– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Goertzen: But the reality is that there is the right to have free votes in a system, and it relates to free speech because, if we actually had a free vote where the whip wasn't on, where the icy stare of the Member for Selkirk (Mr.

Dewar), the whip of the NDP party, wasn't overseeing there, if the glare from the Premier–if he returned from Mexico for the vote– if the glare from the Premier wasn't on all the opposite, or the government members, and you were allowed to freely vote on this bill, your conscience and what you believed the will of your constituents would be, I suspect that there would be a number, a number of government MLAs who would stand up, probably for a number of different reasons– An Honourable Member: We give you more time to speak. Mr. Goertzen: Well, I'll give you time, Mr.

Jha, to speak because I'd like to hear from you. But I think that members of the government, a number of them would vote against this bill, probably for different reasons. Some of them might not agree with the mail vetting, some of them might not agree with the vote tax, but I'm sure there are a lot of different reasons that government members would vote against this particular piece of legislation if it was a free vote. But how can you have a free vote when you don't even have freedom of speech, Mr. Chairperson? How can you allow for a free vote when members can't even ask a question?

It could have been a very, you know, benign question that wouldn't have caused embarrassment to the government, that wouldn't have caused any sort of repercussions. An Honourable Member: We don't want to waste time, my friend. Mr. Goertzen: Well, you know, and he–and this is interesting, because the Member for Radisson says we don't want to–we don't want to waste any time, and he didn't obviously listen. If he would have been

June 4, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 451 able to ask a question of Mr. Keam, who said that filibustering was actually part of the democratic process, part of the proces s–the reason, the reason I know that filibustering is part of the democratic process is because the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has clearly demonstrated that through 12 days of debating. Madam Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Now this committee, and the Clerk can correct me, but I think we're nearing seven or eight days that this committee has sat and sat.

Now I believe that the MTS, I believe the MTS debate sat for nine days, so we're nearing that. We're not actually at the level of filibuster of the Member for Thompson. We're not actually there. We haven't quite reached that level of grand master filibuster, and I don't think that we actually will. But, you know, the Member for Thompson, even though I disagree, even though I would've disagreed with his point in 1990–[interjection] I'm having a hard time hearing myself. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Order. I'm sorry. I'm having some trouble hearing the person who has the floor. Order. Thank you very much. I'm sorry.

I am having trouble hearing the person who has the floor so, if people want to have conversations, I think that's very admirable on their part, but I would recommend that they move to the back of the room. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Madam Vice- Chairperson.

I would've disagreed with the rationale and the reason that the Member for Thompson in 1997, in November of 1997, when he was filibustering the public utilities, I actually saw, I saw the end of your five-hour filibuster, but I disagreed with the point that the member was trying to make, but I agreed with his ability to make that point, even though I didn't agree with the actual substance of it. Now we've taken a different approach. Instead of a raw filibuster that the Member for Thompson undertook, we've raised substantive emotions and important points of order.

We're trying to defend the freedom of speech for the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), rather than just sort of a vexatious filibuster as the Member for Thompson launched. I think that we are living in a more civilized time when parliamentarians make sure that important matters are raised at whatever time. And, if that takes time from the committee, as Mr. Keam indicated, that's important. It's important because there are different ways. You know, Mr.

Enns, Harry Enns, who used to, of course, grace this building, one of the things he told me when I was elected, as he said, you know, a democracy isn't always a pretty sort of thing, but there are countries that they fight it out on the streets with guns and with knives. We come into the Legislature and we fight it out with words, and it's a much better system, and you need to always defend that system. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair I believe that Mr.

Enns was correct in what he said, and this is particular to the point of order that I've raised because how can you actually defend that democratic right to speak as is put out to us in Beauchesne's through

section 75, that one of the most fundamental and unchallenged rights, if the government members won't let their own, won't let their own speak to a particular bill? How are we going to learn from the best of Manitobans? You know, we're all elected here by individuals and, presumably, we would be the best people who were elected at a given time for whatever reason, and it's our duty. We're duty-bound to represent those interests from our constituents.

And I would be, you know, if the Member for Radisson wanted to take the floor right now, I'd cede it to him and he could explain to us why he's not being allowed to speak by the government. But I understand the whip has taken him out of the committee room. Perhaps we'll have to send somebody out after just to make sure he's okay and that he's able to come back in. You know, it almost feels like a union drive, you know, that somebody is tapping you on the shoulder and they've got cards that they want you to sign because we no longer have that secret ballot.

I, actually, the Member for Thompson, you know, I actually appreciated the secret ballot. I actually appreciated the fact that somebody who wanted to have the voice on whether or not they should join a union could go into the secrecy of a ballot-box room and mark an X, yes or no, up or down, whether or not they wanted to join a union. This government, on the issue of freedom of speech and union certification, said no.

We're going to allow the dark of the night, the 3 a.m. knock on the door, not the Hillary Clinton 3 a.m. phone call, but the 3 a.m. knock at the door, whether or not you want to sign this card, and somebody is saying all your other colleagues have signed it; you don't sign it, you're not going to have a job. Do you want to sign, yes or no? That's a bad way to run a democracy.

452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 4, 2008 It's a bad way to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. * (20:20) Similarly, at this committee, it's no different to allow a member or to not allow a member to ask a question of a respected businessman. I mean, you know, all presenters are equal. I will acknowledge that up front, but, Mr. Keam, we made a special exception for him, and I think all the members would agree we made the right decision by allowing him to come, by allowing–[interjection] Well, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has a fixation on the Communist Party.

I know that he feels closely aligned to the Communist Party. I listened to the Communist Party presenter, and I think that the Member for Thompson's party will have to become less extreme to become part of the Communist Party. But I say, Mr. Chairperson, that Mr. Keam, when he was presenting here, would not put himself above any other Manitoban. He would consider himself to be like any other Manitoban.

I know, you could tell he was a humble individual talking about the humble roots that he came from, but I think that we all owed him the respect to allow members, all members of the government who wanted to pose a question, to pose that question. He actually asked for that. One of the first things he said is, I hope that I get questions from the government, and he specifically looked at the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha). I gather they had some sort of a longer term relationship because he said that he knew the member for a long time and he wanted him to ask him a question, and he responded.

The Member for Radisson responded. His hand shot up. He clearly had a question, and you know the Terminator 2 from Brandon East went over there and said, no, you're not going to be able to answer the question. You know, he must have had a flashback and thought he was still in Cabinet and he had to go out and defend the government, and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-ju10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf ju10.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	81373be6cac8b33d9ea65a74ac4a1f3f7bea4992

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