Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 July 1980 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 26, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-pe26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Ha"y E. Graham Speaker FRIDAY, 25 JULY, 1980, 2:00 p.m. Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituen cies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY,Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elm wood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC lnd NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Friday, 25 Ju ly, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Arnold Brown (Rhineland) MR. CL ERK, Ri chard T. Willis: Could the �omm ittee come to order. We have a quorum, do we 1ave a motion for a chairman? WR. MORRIS Mc GREGOR: I move, Mr. Brown be :hairman. VIR. CLERK: Is that agreed? (Agreed) Mr. Brown. VIR. CHAIRMAN: This meeting will come to order. Ne have two bills that we'll be looking at today, Bills l5 and 96. We have some presentations. Mr. George =o rest, Manitoba Assoc iation for Ri ghts and .iberties.

On Bill 96, The Liberal Party in Manitoba; lill 96, Paula Fletcher, Communist Party; Bill 96, the Jew Democratic Party, Mr. John Bucklaschuk and her e's a possi bility that Andrue Anstett will be naking a presen tation. So could we proceed with Bill No. 95 , Mr. George ·orest. Is Mr. Forest present? I don't see Mr. Forest ere. Could we have Bill No. 96, the Liberal Party in �anitoba. BILL NO. 96 THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT IR.

JOHN PETRV SHVN: Good afte rnoon, Mr. :h airman, my name is John Petryshyn, I'm the resident of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and I'm ppearing on behalf of the party to make the resentation at this time. Briefly we filed a letter with yourself, as chairman f the comm ittee and I'll allude to it and as you can etermine, and we'll set out, we're referring basically • Bill 96, The Election Fina nces Act.

We have recommendations in three major areas hich we are concerned about and wish to make to 1is com mittee and , in particular, at the outset, the hole procedure of having a very im portant Act, 1ch as Bill 96, even contempla ted at Speed-up, hich I think doesn't allow for sufficient time for lbate, doesn't allow for due consideration to go rough with the procedure as quickly as possible, I ink is certainly not in keeping with what should 1ve been done to a bill as im portant as this. I think e commi ttee should consider it self with the auses.

We're dealing with something tha t'll be fect ing everyone in Manitoba at the election and, >t only at the election time but dealing with 3tters, as contributions, over a period of time and I ink to present the bill in Speed-up certainly does ,t reflect well. The major areas of our concern is as follows: The Liberal Party, No. 1, objects strongly to the :>posed composition of the Elections Commission, provided under subsection 2 of

Section 3 of the bill. Since the essen tial purpos e of the proposed comm ission is to regulate and control the financial affairs of political parties registered under this bill and operating in the political process in Manitoba, it is essential th at all such registered parties be represented on the commission. The com mission's task is to control and, if necessary, to prosecute and that's another im portant area.

Section 60 refers to the fact that the Crown has no status under this bill. The comm ission alone will ha ve the sole authority to bring in prosecutions and deal with all matters pertaining to this Act. So this is a very powerful comm ission which has, in a man ner of speak ing, the right of life and death over anybody un der this section. The commission's task is to control, as indic ated, and if necessary, to prosecute the activities of all registered parties operating in the political process in Ma nitoba and not jus t in the Legislatur e.

Any political party subject to the policing and prosecution powers of the co mmi ssion should surely be entitled to a voice on such a commission. To do otherwise is analogous to taxation without representation. lt is our position, therefore, that the requirements for represen tation of registered politi cal parties on the commi ssion should be consistent with the definition of a registered political party under

Section 14 of The Election Fina nces Act and not with any definition of an official party under The Legislative Assembly Act.

As you can determine, gentlemen, that if we had a situation which would take place, as we have in some other provinces, where one party were to domi nate, totally, the Legislature, and there were not to be four mem bers from any other opposition party in the House, that commission would be totally made up, in fact, of the govern ing party and they would totally then have the ability to control, deal with the Act as they saw fit and, even as indi cated at the outset, there is no recourse for the Crown. We think that this kind of composition is totally unacceptable in the political process.

What you have, in fact, is that the registered political parties, under

Section 14, that comply, bu t let's say have ma yb e even th ree members in the Legislatur e, would not be allowed to have a representative on the commi ssion. And we think that totally must be altered. We strongly argue that that

section cannot go in as is. We think that as long as you are a registered polit ical party you should have representation on that commission. And if you don't meet the requirements of

Section 14, then you don't get to sit on the comm ission. Further, the Li beral Party in Manitoba wants to see a reaso nable limit on election spending, in money and donations in kind, by parties and candida tes seeking provincial office. Bill 96 removes the overall election expenditure cei lin g previously un der The Elections Act and onc e again giv es a decided advantage to the wealthy parties and candida tes. In this respect it is a step backward . There are limits prop osed on the spending for media advert ising but 191

Friday, 25 July, 1980 there are a numb er of exclusions such as brochur es and lawn signs - an obvious loophole. Now that, I think, again is quite clear as what the Act is trying to do. lt is showing a bit of an effort on one side to control advert ising, and it gives the appearance that advertising is limited to 40 cents per constituent and so forth but the real crux, such as lawn signs, door-to-door mailings, or wh atever else you want to do, has no limitation whatsoever.

We have a Federal Expens es Act which puts a definite limit on what anybody can spend in the constituency, per person being elected in that constituency, per electorate. No w why this Act wants to limi t advertising and not any other means of campaign contributions or campaig nin g expenditu res, is beyond us in the Liberal Party. If you want to limit one thing, then limit everything or limit nothing, but don't make it appear that you are limiting it to 40 cents per electorate for adver tising only. In the meantime you could be spe nding 10 0, 000 on brochur es and that's no limi t whatsoever.

I think what we have today, it's quite clear what we're trying to establish is that everyone has the opportunity of co min g forward, placing th eir name before the electorate and if they're with an inde pendent or a political party, let every body have the opportunity of getting elected but let's not have a matter of ove rkill where you're going to be spending a fortune on elections, as some political parties are apt to do and you'r e limi ting a thing cal led advert ising.

Why advertising I don't know. lt seems that at least we should have a definite limit, per constituency, 40 cents for all types of campaign expendit ures, or wh atever you'r e going to est ablish, but establish a limit, it is the only logical thing to do. Another concern which we have in the Liberal Party is point thr ee, we object to the proposed prohibition in Sec tion 32 agai nst dona tions to political parties in Manitoba from non-residents and from federal political parties.

This is an affront to the rights of cit izens of this country, including many former residents of Manitoba, to contribute to the party or candida te of their choice. We also cannot support a provision which inter feres with and un derm ine s the exis ting organizational uni ty of national parties of Canada. And again, it is self-evident, one of the major concerns we have now is if we're going to be limiting expenditures,

Section 32 says that you can't have any type of contributions from outside of Manitoba. To start out with, it allows 10 0 per registered candida te. Now you gentlemen know, you aren't going to get far on 100.00. Why even allow 100.00? I don't know, it doesn't make sense to begin with. And if you'r e going to limi t yourself to funds which are only in Manitoba, again, as was pointed out earlier, it's the wealthy parties that are going to get the benefit, or the wealthy candida tes that go ahead and spend as much as they wish, under this Act, from their own resources.

There is nothing, no reason whatsoever, why people from across Canada, from British Columbia or Newfou ndland, or any other province in Canada, or the Territories, cannot send money in to candida tes th ey wish to support. You were well aware that we're exporting people, a lot of these people want to come and send money to maybe their relatives, friends, who knows what they mi ght want to do, the y mi ght cha nge the government, who knows. Maybe it's a plus but we're sayi ng, just from a typical point of view, if you'r e going to send in mo neys, there's no reason why you shou ldn't be allowed to do that.

If you don' t qualif y for a tax receipt in Manitoba, fine, but if you want to send in the money why should you be prohib ited from doing that? And if a federal political party, wishes to assert itself and provide mo neys or help in the organization of that provincial campaign, let it be enumerated, let us say how much the federal party contributed in moneys, or in kind, by workers or organizers, then let that be recorded so we know exactly what has been spent; but don't prohibit it. lt doesn't allow for any advantage to the poli ti cal process.

We 'r e balkanizing this country as is, and now we're really drawing up borders. You in Sault Ste. Marie can't send to my candida te in St. Johns 10 0, because I happen to know him and he's a good friend of mine, I'll send him 10 0.00. You can't do that. There's no rationale behind that. In fact, what we can do is help defray the cost of election expenses if people prefer to contribute from outside, it makes for a better opportunity.

So th ese are the th ree major areas which we are concerning ours elves with and we think that to make the electoral process we commend the government on bring in an Election Expens es Act, we think it's long ov erdue, to have a de duction for your contribution to political parties, we have that in other provinces, we have it in all of Canada. But don't limit it to these things that have been pointed out here where we are, in fact, I think, cutting our own throats with unlimi ted ex penses; the ma keup of the commis sion which is totally unacceptable, and in particular,

Section 32 which deals with the matter of curtailing funds from outside of Manitoba. So that, gentlemen, is my brief present ation. If there are any questions I'l l be free to answer them if you should wish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Petryshyn, so I gather then that you do, in fact, support an extension of the present amounts, in other words, so many cents per candida te and so many cents per political party.

You prefer a system whereby, say, that would be enlarged, as opp osed to the present totals which some people have complained about, in comparison to having partial limits, in the sense of limi ts on certain types of advertising and unlim ited on the rest. So my quest ion, just to summ arize is, do you favour a system whe reby you would allo w a candidate so many cents per voter, and a political party so many cents per voter, as com pared to what's proposed in the bill? MR. PETRYSHYN: Exactly. MR. DOE RN: Mr. Chairman, I won dered if Mr. Petrys hun had any thoughts on enforcement.

There have been some problems in regard to enforcement. I think some of your cand ida tes have had this problem. I just wonde red if you had any obs ervat ions 192

Friday, 25 July, 1980 about that matter, in that I believe some of the government people have felt that one of the reasons they're opting for this type of

an Act is that the y cannot, in fact, enforce the present Act, and I just wondered whether you believe that

an Act can be enforced once you set the limits? MR. PETRYSHYN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that's the purpose of the Act itself and we certainly would take a look at the present situation, where it app ears that, for political reasons, the Attor ney-General's office is not very keen on making prosecutions for anything that's not totally relevant to Election Expenses Act and I think that if this Act were to come into effect and that commission, in fact, was established as we envisage it being amended, but properly being en for ced , we certainly would see no reason whatsover why the Act should not be enforced and if a candidate, or a party, does not comply with the Act as, fina lly it's going to be brought into effect, then certainly we think that prosecution should take place and it should be enforced to the full extent of the law.

And the reason why, I guess, candida tes from all parties have not really followed the Act, or have overspent or have not followed it because as it is set out the rest rictions were not practical. The spending amoun ts now on a campaign, to be realistic, are nowhere near what the practical value is under the old Act. So we think unde r the new Act certainly that should be followed up with stringent rules and it should be followed. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairm an, do you make a distinction between a lawn sign and a placard or poster, because some of these things are in fact identical and I suppo se some could be different but do you distinguish, for instance, between posters, lawn signs, balcony signs and so on? MR. PETRYSHYN: No, I think what we're looking at is all kin ds of advertising or any kin d of brochur es or literat ure, whether its lawn signs and adv ertising in apartment blocks, of any sort. We really don't make any di stinction between them.

We think they all , should be considered as an expense and if that expense is, in fact, incu rred during an election, then it should certainly meet under The Expenses Act and what it cost for that to be prepared or donated, should report the expense. We don't distinguish, really. MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, although I agree with Mr. Petryshyn on his third point about donations comi ng from outside of Manitoba, I won dered whether he can envision a solution to what may be a problem.

If a provincial party would have to reveal its sources of income, but if a provi ncia l party, I suppose, received federal contr i bu tions from its federal senior party, then I suppose they would read on the su rface a contribution, say, from the Li beral Party of Canada, and would you support, say, a di sclosure of their sources?

Namely, if the provincial party has to enu merate all the sources of its funds and one of those lines was 50,000 from the Li beral Party of Canada, would you then requir e a breakout of the basis of their contributions, either di rectly related to the 50,000 or related to all contributio ns from the federal party? Otherwise there may be a problem there in that some corporation may make an indir ect contribution to Manitoba by just giving it to the federal party and then it comes through and it reads on paper as a Li beral Party of Canada. I'm saying, do you see a problem there or not? MR. PETRYSHYN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that there could be a problem in almost any type of method of funding. A corpo rati on, for exa mple, within the province can perhaps make a contribution and tha t mo ney would be coming in from some other source and you would reveal it as being from that corporation. I think the Act would be clear that it's all mo neys recei ved directly or indir ectly. Now the federal parties, all of them have a federal Expenses Act so they have to declare where their mone ys are coming from. I think in that respect you know where they receive their mone ys from.

So if, in fact, the New Democratic Party were to donate 50,000 to the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, then that certainly would be, I think, an allocation as to th ose mone ys coming from that party and where they go t their mo ney from would be allocated federally because they also have to declare where they get their money from. If, for example, a union were to donate directly to the party and say, these mone ys are for Manitoba, then I think that kind of a distinction should be made.

But if it's a simple funding of a provincial party, then I think sufficient notification would be that it is from a federal party and it should be duly no ta rized , duly recorded bu t it shou ldn't be restricted, was what we're saying basically. MR. DOERN: So you also favo ur then the full di sclosure of trust funds? MR. PETRYSHYN: Yes, Mr. Doern, we do. MR. DOERN: And you'r e willing to forego what ever benefits there might have been to non-disclosure?

I gather the n in the '73 provincial elect ion the Manitoba Liberal Party received on its report, that it subm itted on the election, that 10 0 percent of its funds came from a trust fund . You're now willing to forego whatever benefit there might hav e been from anonymity? MR. PETRYSHYN: Well, I think it's qu ite clear that we're dealing with

an Act now that requir es us to indicate how much mone ys are being spent and to give a proper receipt under an election expense, whether it's coming from a trust fund or a corporation or another federal party. I th ink it's incumb ent that disclosure should be made. MR.

DOERN: I wanted to ask a few questions on the propo sed election comm ission which I think would be better handled by the Ch ief Electoral Officer but th ere is a propos al here th at a comm ission be established and you already voiced objection to the possible representation of your party or other parties who are in a non-legal party status at the moment. I just ask you again, you'v e already made this point, but if the enforcement would, in terms of there has been a problem with enforcement 193

Friday, 25 July, 1980 in terms of over-expenditure, etc., etc., you believe that if this was by a com mission or as I intend to propose, by the Chief Electoral Officer with strength and powers including powers of prosecutio n, that that would elimin ate enforcement problems at present. Is that your view? MR. PETRYSHYN: Well, to answer you, first of all regarding enforcement, I think it's as anything else, if you have

an Act and you don't enforce it, it only can be as properly implied if you do take the full extent of the law which is available to you. Our consideration with the makeup of th is com mission, and also we gave thought to what you're suggesting, of having th e Chief Electoral Officer alone deal with that. lt certainly is another way out of this dilemma as we see it with

Section 3 subsection (2). That certainly would be a possibility if that Chief Electoral Officer had a proper staff and had proper type of support where he or she could then look into the various allegations or enforcement of the Act; and to put it in the hands of someone who would be totally non-political, we certainly would have no objection to that kind of solution either.

But since we're saying we're dealing with this type of com position of a com mission which has been put forward, our main concern is that it si mpl y is governing registered political parties, and even those parties that aren't register ed, as per th eir representation in the Legislatu re. So in fact you have the Legislature Act pursuant and appl ied to the political parties and I think, in that respect, I think it certainly should be ch ange d to wha t we're suggesting is that it shouldn't be limited just to the num ber of people or elected representa tives in the Legislatur e.

But if you're going to be complying with the terms of this Act, then surely it should make sense that you should ha ve someone on that commission, especially if you're liable to prosecution and subject to all the provisos which tha t Act envisages. And just because you don't have four, as we say, four elected represent atives - you may have thr ee or two or one - and yet you aren't able to have anybody on the com mission.

The real scare which most people look at is, again, that possibility of one party totally dominating the Legislatur e and then ha ving absolutel y no opportun ity of any other political party being there, and it becomes a total total political weapon, I think, at that time. MR. DOERN: Did you have an opportun ity to study the Ont ario operation of an election com mission or any other jurisdictio n? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to say that Mr. Petryshyn does not have to answer that question because this leads us into another jurisdiction. Mr. Petryshyn. MR.

PETRYSHYN: Just briefly to say, we looked at a couple of the other Acts and considered them. That's all we really have had the opportun ity to do. One of the things that we're saying at the ou tset is that because we're in Speed-up and the way that this bill is being presented, we really haven't had time to sit down and really give good thought to all the other Acts, and so forth. I've been phoning a few of my friends to find out what kind of Acts they have in B.C. or in Ontario and trying to get a hold of it but we're just in a rush situation now.

That's one of our main concerns of why this bill is being presented at this stage. But really to say we sat down and ga ve it deep thought, we really haven't. We've looked at it but tha t's about all. MR. DOERN: Well, I think you're now raising a very major point and that is, do you feel that there are so many problems or com plications or comp lexities in this Act, that it should not be proceeded with at the present time? MR. PETRYSHYN: Definitely.

I think that it's quite clear, as I said at the outset, and the release which we had presented earlier is that the sheer volume of legislation being presented now to the House and, in particular, this Act which we're really in favour of having some kind of

an Act where you are able to contribute and obtain tax receipts on a provincial basis, but why present it now in such a rush time when you can't sit back and look at all the various problems with it. We've only limited ourselves to three areas. We've gone through the Act on a very quick basis but there are so many other concerns we have that presenting it at this time just presents, I think, more prob lems and I think more thought should go into it and I don't think it should be proceeded with at this time. MR. DOERN: Your presentation ts tn regard to Bill 96.

I assume that one reason you're not speaking on Bill 95 is that you are, in principle, in favour of it or, in principle, do not oppose 95. MR. PETRYSHYN: That's correct. There was some matters arising out of it but I think one major area of concern has been withdrawn. I think we're all aware of what we're referring to at this time, and in general, in principle anyway, we are prepared to accept Bill 95 as is. MR.

DOERN: So you're saying in regard to 96 that t in addition to the com plexities I assume that you also have some straight opp osition and some serious doubts and reservations, and on that count you would actually recommend the withdrawal of the bill. MR. PETRYSHYN: That's right. I think as we said before, just the time of it at this stage, I think you need a good thought of what is being presented here and an opportunity to discuss it in the House, to look at it in com mittee stage and to have a whole election dealing with the matters pertaining to the upcoming elect ion.

We have new bounda ries which would have been brought in, ther e's going to be a whole different appr oach, I think, at wha t will be forthcoming in the next election, within a year or a year and a half, and I think at this time to rush through with this bill, I think it's totally unacceptable to most of the political parties and to the Electorate, I think. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I also want to ask Mr. Petryshyn whether he had any concerns about the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by 194

I Friday, 25 July, 1980 the Executive Council and I ask him whether he would support the suggestion that the Chie f Electoral Officer should be appointed by a comm ittee of the Legislature, as opposed to the Executive Council. MR. PETRYSHYN: I think the appo intment in the past has always been of the same type of approach as this one has been done. I think that when we're considering with the Chief Electoral Officer, the more inde pendent the person can be, or at least appear to be even , then so much the better.

I certainly would ha ve no objection and even heartily endorse the fact that in the future we should look at maybe, in the Legislature as you suggest, a commi ttee or some other type of inde pendent body being structu red, such as we hav e an Inde pendent Bounda ries Commi ssion being esta blishe d and so forth, something to totally make it even appear to be. We have no objection with a person ho lding the office today or people in the past but I think just for the cla rification and to make it appear to tally non political that maybe some other method could be achieved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize Mr.

Doern, I would like to advise him that he is now getting outside of the realms of Bill 96 and we would like him to have his questions pertai ning to Bill 96. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that the Chief Electoral Officer is in fact a very important person in regard to both of the se Acts and is discussed in each Act. My final question is, I wond ered whether you had any thoughts or recommendations into the question of direct public fu nding. We're discussing what might be called indir ect public funding here, a system whereby tax rebates are given. I assume that you support that.

I wond ered whether you ha d consider ed another alterna ti ve or another supplement which is dir ect go vern ment aid to political parties in the form of 25 or 50 percent of their expen ditu res at election time. MR. PETRYSHSYN: Mr. Chairman, to answer that, I think that also, as I sa id, th ere's so many things that have come up in this Act which we haven't had a time to even make a presen tation on.

But to take the Federal Act, if a candida te gets 15 percent of the vote, then he or she gets a rebate of X num bers of dollars and we certainly don' t see anyth ing wrong why this should not also be implemented in this Act. I think it would just be more beneficial to have that kind of a procedure. I know for a fact that in Saskatchewan that kind of legislation is in effect; that if you get a certain percentage of the vote, then you get a certain amount of the money rebated.

So that's the kind of thing that we would favour, at least, rather than saying the fund ing of 25 or 30 percent of the expenses direct by provincial party or a federal party or a federal government, with that kind of a proviso, which is akin to the federal Act, we certainly would have no objection and it would make a great deal of sense, too, to put it in. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Petryshyn, I hap pen to concur with your rec ommendation that this kind of legislation should probably not be rushed through and it was my own suggestion to the Attor ney General that we refer the matter to this commit tee, but that thi s commit tee not report until the next session so that we would have an intersessional period that would give us an ample opportunity to review the intent of the bill and to ma ke the necessary reco mmendations that would flow from such a review.

I want to ask you one other important question and that is, as a matter of principle, would you ag ree with me that this legislation should be - I'm talking about Bill 96 - that this legislation should be a concensus recommendation rather than a partisan recommendation from this committee? MR. PETRYSHYN: By all means. MR. USKIW: Okay, that' s all. MR.

PETRYSHYN: You know, what we're looking at is simply a situation whereby this is so important to every political party, to every inde pendent person that seeks political office, that it really should be, I think, a bip artisan study and an agreement of everybody as to saying, the idea is not to take a look who can win the next election; we're looking at the ide a of forming this bill to make it as fair and as equitable and justifiable for anybody wishing to seek political office .

I think tha t's what you're trying to do is esta blish , you have the principle here, what you want to do is giv e people financial in ce ntiv e to contribute to political

partie s. So don't restrict it by other means because actua lly with what we're raising, in particular, is going to make it seem that what you're trying to establish is quite good on the outside but deep down, with all the problems that you're est ablishing and the commission makeup and the other elements that we've done, I think you're just going to create more of an enforcement problem in the future and you're going to turn this into a very polit ical-type of issue. I think it should be non political really. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. Mercier. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER: Mr.

Petryshyn, do you believ e in dis closur e of identi fication of contribut ors to political parties? MR. PETRYSHYN: I think that, taking the federal Act for example, where anybody contributing over 100, any corpor ation, indi vidual, th ey're du ly recorded and made public. I think that kind of disclosure should be available under this Act as well, any contribution over 100, even less, except for clerical problems and so forth. I think di sclosure would certainly be appropriate. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Petryshyn, how wou ld you fore see your thir d sugg estion whereby federal political parties would be allowed to contribute to 195

Friday, 25 July, 1980 Manitoba political campaigns? How would disclosure be accommoda ted under those circums tances? MR. PETRYSHYN: I think the question was raised earlier, where you would have a contribution being made, say, from the federal Prog ressive Conservative Party to the provincial Cons ervative Party and that would be d'uly no tari zed and ind ica ted that a contribution of X numb er of dollars was made.

Now federal-political parties have to indica te where they receive their funds from as well, so you have a federal disclosure, you know where they got their mo neys from and if a federal party contribu tes to a provincial party, then you have an indic ation as to what was contributed and by whom and the Act is clear; it's direct or indir ect funding. If they're trying to pull off some kind of, as indicated earlier by Mr. Doern, if it's an indir ect contribution by a corporation or some other type of means to tr y and circumna vigate the Act, then obvio usly you would have a matter of enforcement.

But I think that you would certainly have to disclose that, for example, the federal Conservative Party gave X numb er of dollars to the provincial party, and that would be sufficient, at least for that pur pose, because they have to indicate where they got their money from. So you have two means of dis closi ng. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Pet rysh yn, do you think Manitoba political campaigns should be run and paid for by Manitobans or should there be allowed a possibility of a significant contribution or influence from outside Manitoba? MR.

PETRYSHYN: Well, I think what we're looking at is having an election being run by Manitobans and people who reside in Ma nitoba. But what we're saying also is that, by bringing in

Section 32 you're eli minating any contribu tions from outside the province. Certainly one could say th at somebody from another province then will be able to control a politic al party within a provi nce because you'r e getting money from some other source. I think that we have sufficient safeg uards in our political proc ess that we have di sclosure as to where the money is coming from and I think that if somebody from outside the province wishes to contribute they can do so. it's not a question of, do Manitobans or do Ontarians, or Nova Scotians, run the political party in Manitoba.

I think it's stric tly a matter of having the opportunity to contribute to that political party but certainly no one but Ma nitoba ns and people in Manitoba run their political process. MR. MERCIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: One other point, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petryshyn talked about the need for a bipartisan approach on legislation of this kind, and I ask him whether he believes that Bill 96 is bia sed in favou r of the govern ment? MR. PETRYSHYN: Well, it's a difficult question to say that biased, I can see difficulties arising and for example,

Section 3(2) dealing with the composition, as I've said many time s, there is a potential inherent danger here if we do have ou rselves akin to some other province where one party domi nates, then you really can ha ve the go ver nment, in the futur e, domi nating that commission, and we can see that, in the future, there may be some difficulty arising from this type of legis lation. So what we're saying is that it should be a bipartisan approach in establishing this Act, and also that a bipartisan approach can be used in the future, should you ever have one political party totally dominating the Legislature.

So I would not want to say directly, this is a government instrument out to com pletely destroy the political process but it creates enough pro blems in this bill, in this whole section, that it could be deemed to be something that, I think, the government itself maybe perceived as not having thought the thing through and making it into a very political type of bill that it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Petryshyn. MR. PETRYSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BILL NO. 95 THE ELECTIONS ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. George Forest, Bill No. 95. MR. GEORGE FOREST: Mr.

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you proceed, Mr. Forest, do you have copies of your presenta tion. MR. FOREST: I'm sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, haven 't. I have been researching it somewhat and I've prepared a lot of text but I was able to get a copy of the bill only a matter of a week ago and I haven't had time to put all my notes in proper order. But I do believe that you are record ing and perhaps you can get a transcript from that and if possible I can have a transcript copy sent to me. I have the distinct impression that my coming before you today is just a waste of time.

With all that has been said in the House and what is being said \ today since the introduction of the bill on July 7, I can very well imagine that the governing majority of the province of Manitoba is only ready to go through the requi red forma t and is unl i kely to pay any attention to the feelings of minorities.

I wish I could feel here like a full-fledged Manitoban and make a contribution to your debates on the technical content of the bill in question but alas, like my father before me, like most Canadians of French origin in Manitoba, since even before 1890, I must first of all establish respect for the recognition of my own language in these th e halls of legislation. In spite of having English shoved down my throat I have no regrets for having been able to master Manitoba's two official langu ages.

However, I regret not being able to share with you my contribution to Canada's develop ing culture, in this Legislature and with my fellow citiz ens of this province. lt is iron ical to have to point out, and even to the point of being rid iculous, how the government of Ma nitoba has placed itself in sy mp athy with the presen t government of Quebec. The subtle policy of the Rene 196

Friday, 25 July, 1980 Levesque government to consider as Quebecois only those who speak French, seems to ha ve its parallel in Manitoba, where to be on the pro-separatist stance in the guise of feeling aliena ted from Ottawa, and the east in general, we must follow a dangerous border-line position of maintaining an English only approach to identifying Manitobans or westerners. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you dealing with Bill 95? MR. FOREST: Yes, this is just a

preamble, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, proceed. MR. FOREST: Gentl emen, I'v e often heard the express ion, the spirit as well as the letter of the law, neit her of the se are being resp ected . The government of Manitoba, through its advisors from the Attorney-General's Depart ment, is still fighting the case it lost in the Supreme Court of Canada on December 13, 19 79. All the Attorney-General can >ay, in reply to a question as to what the government s doing or has done to implement

Section 23 of The Manitoba Ac t of 18 70, is th e Janu ary 19 80 mnouncement of translating law records of the past. md making some weak attempt at providing some ranslation of current bills in the Legislatu re. Mr. Chairman, this is simply not enough. I'm about .o lo se all patience with Mr. Mercier and the JOVernment of Manito ba. The government of this Jrovince is not being seen as respe cting the decision Jf the Supreme Court of Canada. Last December 22, 1979, the Win nipeg Free Press wrote an editorial and me of its writers, Fred Cleverley, wrote an

article mtitled 'Planning for Bilingualism". I would like to ead parts of these two articles, Mr. Chairman, to .how just what progr ess has not been made since >ecember of last year. Applying langua ge laws, says the editorial, there is 11 the difference in the world between the reactions ,f the Quebec and Manitoba governments to the uling of the Supreme Court which reaffirm the 1inority lang uage rights gu arante ed by the :onstitution.

In an effort to arouse resentment against the �deral system in the English-spe aking mi nority luebec's Cultural Affairs Mini ster, Camille Laurin is usy putting the broadest and most outlandish 1terpretation possible on the ruling. He has claimed, Jr example, tha t the ruling will force mu nici pal :Juncil, in areas where no word of English has ever een spoken, to function bilingually. In Manitoba, by con trast, the pro vincial :Jvernment, with a minim um of rhetoric, is going :Jout the business of finding out how to give the 1ling practical effect As an

article on this made by ·ed Cleverley points out, "There is no agreement on hat changes must be made to government practice lre to comply with the law. George Forest, whose gal ch allenge lead to the ruling may well be sap point ed with the pract ical resu lts of his tmpaign, but the best guides for Manitoba are, tdoubtedly; first, common sense and second, the actice that has been followed in the two other 3nadian jurisdic tions which have been officially lingual since Conf ederation". On that basis the changes here will not be as drastic as some had hoped and others had feared.

There is no apparent need , for example, for a simultaneous translation of the proceed ings of the Ma nitob a Legislature. The federal parliament got along without translation for the first 90 years of its existence and the Quebec National Assembly has never had it and, of course, at the time of The Manitoba Act of 19 70, when it was passed, it was never thought of because it wou ld ha ve been technically impossible. Simil arly, Queb ec has got along without translating Hansard, just simply publishing the speeches in the langua ge in which th ey were del ivered.

The documents which will have to be translated are the daily mi nutes of the Legislature, called Votes and Proceedings. Copes of new legislation will no doubt ha ve to be translated and the government will surely have to begin translating the laws which are on the books at the moment, beginning with those most likely to be used. All courts will not be bil ingual but they will undoub tedly have to have facilities to hold trials in French if the need arises.

All civil servants will not have to be bilingual but someone ought to be able in branches of departments which deal with the public, to cope with French-speaking cit izens. All of this, of course, adds up to a good deal less than the bill of lingui stic rights for Man itoba's French-speaking community. The real essentials for the survival of that community are not translation of government documents but government support and the economic education and cultural fronts.

Action in these areas is not imposed by the Supreme Court lt should be imposed by the government upon itself as a basic rec ognition of the rights and needs of its own citizens. In the Fred Cleverley article, I won't read it all, there are two points that I feel might be mentioned. One has to do with comments made by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. I cannot understand for the likes of me, Mr. Chairman, how Chief Justice Archi bald Dewar could be emitting opinions on how

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act should be implemented in Manitoba, in view of the fact, that he has possibly ruled hims elf out on further judgments or anything that may come before him in the future. The second point, and it's under the heading of Retaliation in the

article by Fred Cleverley, "Arguments over the implementation of bilingualism in Manitoba, if they occur, are likely to surface first in the Legislature. At the moment, no member of the Leg islatur e is un able to un derstand English . If, however, a member who also speaks French decides to stand on his constitutional rights he may run into some trouble that has no basis in law. If the use of a second langua ge inconv eniences others they may retaliate in one or other of the langua ges, other than English or French , that are common in Manitoba.

If the Speaker follows past practice and allows any language to be us ed, the net result may be temporary confusion". I mention that last point, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that is possibly one of the major stumbling blocks, perhaps not of the government itself but of individuals in Manitoba, members of the opposition as well, who feel that their electorate being neither of 197

Friday, 25 July, 1980 the English or French-speaking cultural community, as such, have an equal right for the use, preservation and continuation of their language as on semi-official status. That I am sure, Mr. Chairman, is a fallacy that will have to be put to sleep. lt is a mistake to lead the people to believe that Canada is not a bilingual country or that to be bilingual Canada need only be English at one end and French on the other.

When I said a while ago, and I'm coming to the point of my only remarks on the bills before you at this moment, is that I do believe that the government owes it to itself to start with the coming elect ions and making cer tain that they are run on a bilingual basis. On Page 242 of The Manitoba Law Jour nals, Volume 10, Professor Magnet reference to whom I made in a presentation earlier before you, had this to say: "Imm igration from Ontario proceeded rapidly as expected after Manitoba join ed the union. Franco Ma nitob ans quic kly became a mi no rity.

English settle ment, however, was territo rially separated from French , the two cul tur es were co ncentr ated in different districts. Territorial separation prevented assimilation and preserved the cultural duality of the province". The next paragraph: "In this condition French flourished. Provincial legislation encouraged it. Provisions were made for bilingual muni cipal noti ces. Sim ilar leg islat ion stipul ated for bilingual proclamations, electoral forms and voters notices. Mi xed juries in criminal tria ls were an affirmed right; in some districts mixed juries were allowed on civil cases".

Though the governme nt of Quebec tried to make political hay out of the December 13 th decision, as were the remarks by Cam ille Laurin and other remarks by members of the Levesque government crying out "injustic e", the Qu ebec go vernment nevertheless - and I'll repeat that - neverthel ess sat till 4:00 o'clock the next morning of December 14 th, to render official the English version of all laws passed in the National Assembly since 19 77. At stake was the validity of all laws including that legis lation which aimed at expro priation of the asbestos ind ustr y in Qu eb ec.

The Mani toba government, in cont rast , to use the words of the editorial, with a minimum of rhetoric was going about the busi ness of finding out, to give results practical effect. The edit oria l writers should have added, "doing it without enthusiasm, without any efforts that come from goodwill". Gentlemen, last April 29th I wrote to the then Honour able Gerald Mercier in th ese terms: I' ll have to translate the letter as I read it in French.

"More than thr ee months have gone by since we met in your office in the Legislative Palace. lt is now four months since the una ni mous decision of the Supreme Court has been rendered. On the 18 th of Janu ary, in effect, during the audience which you had the cou rtesy of according me, I spoke amongst other things of the need to ap ply Arti cle 23 of The Manitoba Act, without fanfare, even with debate in the Legislature. I come back to ask you today to take your own remarks seriously, to the effect that the spirit, as well as the letter of the law, would be respected. Let us take up the discussion ".

"Under head ing 'A' of the discussion paper which we had before us on Janu ary 18 th, I said that: 'Since the use of English and French were mandatory in the Debates of the Legislature, how can you ju stif y the absenc e of simu ltaneous tr anslat ion when mo re than 50 percent of the members cannot understand what is being said in French?' You are not without knowing that Arti cle 23 stipulates 'equality of the languages, English and French in the Legisla ture', just as Arti cle 13 3 of the B.N .A.

Act of 18 67 stip ulates equality of the two same languages in the parliament of Canada and the National Assem bly of Queb ec. "Application to the letter of Sect ion 133 in the Debates of the National Assembly of Queb ec should be respected in the same way as it is now in the parliament at Ottawa. it's good and well for the mem bers of the Leg islat ur e and the Na tio nal Ass embl y to speak and und erstand both official languages.

However, since the Legislature is not the exclusive domain of members of the Legislature and that the public is welcome to attend, why should the unilingual English person in Quebec or the un ilingual French person in Manitoba be treated as a stranger? Or still, why should a citizen, just as well as a member of the Legislature, not use the language that he chooses, or hear in the language that he will, knowing that he will be un derstood and that he'll be able to und erst and ?

"Also under heading "B" of my dis cussion paper, I brought to your att ention the fact th at it was necessary that all the Archiv es, proces verbaux which is the French word for mi nutes and the Journals of the House be translated. I repeat once again, Arti cle 23 of The Manitoba Act did not say that it would have to be the official Archiv es, to be the official mi nutes or to be the official Jour nals. The Hansard, be it official or not, is a record, is a journal and is the proces verbaux or the minutes of the meeting. Hansard in Ottawa is pu blished in both official languages.

I'm sure that Hansard in Manitoba would have, since 19 50 when it came about, have been published in both languages if the error of 18 90 had not been commit ted . In my hum ble opinion it is evident that Hansard is an archive. I've often heard, Mr. Chairman, members of the Legislature, and I � think it's been put in print, they quote from the records by quoting something that was said several days past. lt is evident that Hansard is also the mi nutes and also a Journal. "Ma y I recom mend tha t you go beyond the Department of the Attorn ey-General for advice on the application of

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act. To judge by the slowness of the putting in application of the said article, your legal couns ellors are still on the defensive and they risk being perceived as being political coun cillors. Waiting for you to establish a definite program, in the form of a

schedule in both domains, which I mentioned hereabove, sim ultaneous transla tion and French version of Hansard, I would beg of you to make it possi ble for me to receive, from the Bureau of Trans lation, that which was said in English, the English text of that which was said by Mr. Desj ardins on the 26 February last. And the English text of all remarks made in French in the Legislature. I do not for the tim e bei ng, ask to receive the French text of everyt hing that's been said in English." We'll come back to that later on. I beg you to believe, Mr. Chairman. 198

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I have a great deal of difficulty relating your comments to Bill 95, which deals with The Elections Act. This is setting up polls, making up voters lists and so on. You really have not been addressing yourself to Bill 95, so far. MR. FOREST: I'll mention, Mr. Chairman, with all this

preamble (I nterject ion)- Can I finish, Mr. Chairman? MR: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw, on a point of order. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ind icate to the Chair that Mr. Forest had alluded to the fact that he wanted th e next elect ion run on the basis of a bilingu al approach and what he is relating to us is to date the contradictions of the gove rnment's policy with respect to that question since some months ago, and as I un derstand his com ments, he is suggesting that that should not continue into the future and into the next election.

His pitch is that we have to prepare the next elect ion process in duality, if you like, that's my understand ing. MR. FOREST: That is it, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If Mr. Forest, would like to have his comments in regard to The Elections Act and the problems that he foresees, and them not being bilingual, there's no problem. But when we're talking about Hansards and about all kinds of other things, these are not covered in this Act and we're straying off the topic. So if Mr. Forest would confine his comm ents to Bill 95, we'd be very pleased. Mr. Forest. MR.

FOREST: I was sure you'd be very pleased if I had very little to say. However, Mr. Chairman, since I am not able to, because of my own profession, my own work, to be able to spend more time and being present at all your meetings, I have to bunch things a little bit together.

If I had been able to, and I doubt whether anyone in the province of Manitoba has been able to, have some input in that bill which I believe was No. 48, on amending the Legislative Act, what was it, in order to incr ease your salaries, on the very basis that the mem bers of the Legislature are possi bly in violation of the very existence of this Leg islature, I would have called for a heist or a put away, or put back to perhaps the Greek calendar, as one would often say, incr eases in salary.

I doubt whether many of you are aware that the same weight that was on the shoulde rs of the government of Quebec on the 13th of December is also to be borne by the Manitoba government and that is the big quest ion. Are the laws since 18 90 valid in Manitoba? Are the laws valid? And becaus e changes have been made, is the very existence of the government of Manitoba either a question to be in terpreted by the :ourts. Because of that, I'm not prepared to declare lhe government to be outla wed because we do have lo have authority. Without being autoc rats I'm sure that we can practise democracy. I'm confident, Mr.

Chairman, that the time to begin s at th e time of an elect ion that's coming up. I'm mre that the ballots have not yet been prepared, I'm >ure that the voters lists will have to be made, these things cou ld be done, and will then appear that bilingual ism is official in Manitoba. lt isn't enough, Mr. Chairman, and I would repeat it, to state that French is official if it's not to be respected as such; it isn't enough, Mr.

Chairman, to just give lip service to the recog nition for Manitoba, as well as for the welfare of the entire Cana dian nation, for the Ma nitoba government to be dragging its feet in recog nizing the full effect of Sect ion 23 of the Manitoba Act. I had prepared other notes, Mr. Chairman, but in deference and kn owing tha t this is Frida y and everybody would like to leave early tonight I will end there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Forest. Before we proceed with the questioning, I would appreciate very mu ch if the persons who will be doing the ques tioning, would relate their questions to Bill 95. Mr. Doern.

MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'll relate my question's to Mr. Forest's pres entation which was on Bill 95. I just want to ask him to clarify one thing because I could not quite un derstand his point. He seemed to say, several ti mes, that the Manitoba government was fighting the decision of December 1979, ever since, or was now beginning to fight the Supreme Cour t decision of Dec em ber 19 79, and I ju st wonde red if he could explain what he meant by that?

Did he mean that they are reinstituting some sort of an appeal or launching some new legal or formal procedure, or is he talking about foot dragging in regard to implementat ion? MR. FOREST: lt is basically, Mr. Chairman, these last remarks of Mr. Doern and the fact that I do believe the government is pur posely foot dragging. If it were a question of priority, I would suggest that the government could have, before now, produced the official French version of The City of Winn ipeg Act, The County Court Act, The Court of Queen's Bench Act, and The Sum mar y Conv ict ions Act.

Those are the four documents that were asked and accorded by the decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, in order for my case of 1976 to be carried on with and terminated. I cannot understand for the life of me why those four particular bills should not, before now, have been consid ered priority. On the other hand, ju st sitting back and sa ying th at spen ding 500,000, a good measure of which I'm sure must be paid by the federal government, and waiting till perhaps five years before doing something else is not enough.

As I mentioned and repeated, and I will repeat many ti mes again, th ere is no need for leg is lation in order to apply Sect io n 23 of The Manitoba Act, it's there. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman , I wanted to ask Mr. Forest if he could be more specific, or at least for purposes of illustration. We have these two bills before us and he's spe cifically talking on Bill 95 which has to do with the mechanics of elect ions and so on; what sort of things is he looking for? For example, is he looking for ballots that are printed in both langua ges?

Can he give us some illustration of ho w a govern ment, fi red up with the idea of bilingualism and bicultur alism in Ma nitoba would act? What would they do in regard to the mechanics 199

Friday, 25 July, 1980 of the elect ion? Bilingual poll clerks, bilingual ballots, what sort of things do you envision are needed? MR. FOREST: Step by step, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doern. I'm sure that those things which are possible could be done and that is in the field of the bilingua l documents and I think a set example already there is the federal government's way of running elect ions.

From then on, of course, wherever it is possible to prefer, not only a bilingua l person, but I would encourage a trilingual and a quadrilingual and a quintilingual person sitting at the ballots, in order to be able to understand and better serve all the peopl e of Manitoba. But this is some thing in progress. I think we can all be elated at knowing that more than 50 percent, as of last year, and I think perhaps this coming September we may be seeing close to 60 percent of the students in Manitoba are taking French.

I deplore that point, as I mentioned befo re, that the go vern men t do esn't seem to recognize that there are hundr eds of people that are able to advise the government about French and yet the advisory comm ittee is not going to be taken from th ose very cir cles. I de plor e the fact that th e government is not taking leadership and Canada is going to be bilingual or else it will not exist. lt's the only way.

I don't know jus t whether I am talking in such language as you cannot understand but either we are go ing to form a Canadian nation as a bilingual nation towards creating a Canadian culture, as such, and it is still in the growing stages. If we don't do that we won't have a country, and it is these steps - I wouldn't be adamant in wanting to have everybody in the polls bilingual, but let's make sure that there is no squawks, let's make sure that people are available. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR.

DOERN: So you were saying that the Supreme Court decision of last De cember, ther e is no evidence in this Bill that that decision took place. MR. FOREST: I am sur e the government didn't think it was necessary. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the go ve rnment felt it was necessary. The government possibly is sitting on the posture this moment of say ing, let's do the translation, let's put one bill or two in trans lat ion. I don't know just how much has been done.

I am in limbo, I really don't know just where we stand insofar as the government is concerned, and nothing is evident that Manitoba wants to belong to the Canadian nation. Manitoba is still one of these holding a trump card in respect to saying, well, listen, we are not going to go bilingual, because if we do so we are going to have to say yes like Ottawa and Quebec. I have often giv en a scenario of this sort, that if Manitoba were to really recognize the mistake that was done in 18 90 and revert to what the fathers of Confederation wanted Canada to be, I am sure that Ontario would not be far behind.

We are all aware that not more than a year ago a bill was passed in this House or it was unanimous until Mr. Davis vetoed it. There is goodwill, there has been talk about 25 letters that the government has received ind icating that, no, French must not be official in Manitoba, but go vernment should have more leadership than that. I could very well trade those 25 signatures or letters with the 25 or more letters that I have got, and they are possibly the same individua ls.

I am sure that there are thousands of people in Manitoba that would be prepared to go along with the policy on a gradual basis and let's get back into making Canada a country that everybody can enjoy to be living in. I deplore once more, Mr. Chairman,- Mr. Doern, in reply to your question, the fact that I have to be continu ously coming up here and appear to be an underdog or to be making excessive demands. lt is the only thing I can do. I would like to have touched tho se other points of your bi ll and to di scus s democratic applicat ion.

I agree with those arguments that I have heard and read about that it should not be partisan. All that is happening is that the next government, if it should change, will then amend the law and make it its own plan of elect ion. We are changing the rules of the game to please the people th at are hoping to win. I don't think th at is demo cracy in practice. I think we should expect from our legislators, not necessarily becaus e they are lawyers or because they are erudites, but we should expect good reason ing, we should expect sage counsel from them, and I think it is lacking at times. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern.

MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Forest earlier said that he regarded this legislation as paying lip-service to the needs or the rights of Franco-Manitobans. I wonder whether he was not even being generous in that. Is there any evidence of any kind that the rights or privil eges of Franco-Manitobans are recognized in this legisla tion? MR. FOREST: Oh, in this bill, no. Mr. Chairman, in this bill ther e is no evidence whats oever of that aspect of official status of the French language being present and I think it is deplorable. I think it is deplorable. MR. DOERN: A final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Forest described the fact that he only had a week's time to ex amine the legislat ion and he found it compl ex and so on. From his position would he recommend that the legislat ion not be proceeded with? MR. FOREST: Frankly, if we are not going to make room for a re cognition of the French language in this particular bill there is no need, in my opinion, for it being a change from what we have had in the past. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Would you say, sir, that both elect ion bills should be a non-partisan approach? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forest. MR. FOREST: Oh, defin itely, Mr. Chairma n, defini tely.

I would suggest that when it comes to matters of democracy we are not setting up the rules and ways and means of a political party when we are running the Legislature. This is why, up until the Supreme Court decision, I could well expect the govern ment's at hand, Mr. Schreyer's government 200

Friday, 25 July, 1980 previous to Mr. Lyon's government, at fighting my case; but once the decision of the Supreme Court was given I would have expected the Legislature or the government prima rily to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and to really get down and apply the law as it was written and as the spirit of the law intended Manitoba to be. This, I think, is what is lack ing. We are not getting off, and let's not say that economics are more im portant.

I think people are more important and if the char acter of this nation, the ch aracter of this province were to be one where everybody felt really at home, where everybody felt that they were respectful of the law especially, I am sure that economics would im prove as a second nature. MR.

USKIW: Giv en the fact that you have such st rong feelings about the qu est ion of the dual sys tem , language system, which I respect by the way and I think you have made a good case, given the fact that we are now in the sort of last few days of this Ses sion, would you agree with the idea that these two bill s not be reported back for thir d reading, but be held for intersessional study, so that we could further develop our thoughts, as well as your thoughts, with respect to the kind of report this committ ee should send back to the Legislature. MR. FOREST: Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Uskiw, as I can well imagine that next elections will not be until next fall, there will be another Session in the spring. I think perhaps there is still time for this work to be done, and on that basis if any respect can be given to the recog nition of Manitoba's cultur es, official cultu res and the others too, because if we do not recognize bilingualism in Manitoba, I think it is a pipe dream to expect other cultur es to survive, and if we are not prepared to do that immediately, I would say definitely put it on the back burner and bring it up next year. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, that is not quite what I have in mind. I believe that this kind of legislation can be dealt with adeq ua tely inter ses sionally between now and the next Ses sion and to be reported to the Legislature at the next Session. MR. FOREST : I am not fully aware of the mechanism, Mr. Chairman. I am not fully aware of the mechanisms of their committ ees and that, but if what you say is an ind ication that more input can be made to it and that more thoughts can be giv en to it, I am sure that I would go along with th at and suggest that the ques tion be delayed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Forest. The Manitoba Association for Rights and Li berties, Bill 95. If they are not present, Paula Fletcher, Co mmu nist Party, Bill 96. Not present. Bill 96, the New Democratic Party, Mr. John Bucklaschuk. MR. JOHN BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address this body specifically to Bill 96, at the outs et saying that it is a very com plex bill and qu ite confusing from our vie wpoint. lt is a bill that requi res considerable study which, unfortunately, we have not had the time to do and for that reason we haven 't done very much at all with respect to Bill 95.

If the purpose of Bill 96 is to enact a bill which would make Man itobans feel that political parties operate under some fair rules, that there is some sort of equality involved, we feel that this bill fails to meet th ose criteria. lt is comp lex, th ere are num erous contradictions within the bill, there are glaring om issions. We have to look at th ese sect ion by

section in the bill itself, and for that reason I think I will just go through the sections and comment on problems that we foresee. The first

section that we would question is the need for a Commission. I am not aware that we have had any great problems in Manitoba with the present system where the Ch ief Electoral Officer is respon sible for the running of elections. With the im position of the Commis sion there cer tainly will be some problems. First of all, we question the com pos ition of a Commission which excludes mi nority party views. Under

Section 3, under the present ci rcum stances only two major parties would be represented on that Commission, and under that cir cumstance, where there were opposing views, where there might be opposing view between parties represented on this Com mission, the Chi ef Electoral Officer th en becomes the tie-breaker and we feel that this puts the Chief Electoral Officer in a rather un tenable position.

There is also a question as to the restriction of appoin tments to the Comm ission and to the restriction on the activities of mem bers. lt would seem to me that when the leader of a political party appoints his desig nates to the Comm ission that they are there to protect the interests of that political party, and yet the restrictions in

Section 6, (1) and (2), certainly would tend to negate that purpose. A further com ment about the Commi ssion. In

Section 9 there is reference that as part of the dut ies of the Commission, it shall assist political parties in the preparation of returns and statements and so on. We feel that is not a function of the Commission, that the Comm ission should sim ply di rect the pol itic al parties. Ther e is a di sti nct di fference between assisting and directing. Throughout the report th ere are num erous requirements for record ing names, lists of donors, expenditures, trans fers, and I presume the purpo se being to make this information avai lable to the public.

Now there is a real question as to making all this information avai lable when th ere are no rest rictions as to expen ditur es, or very few rest rictions to expenditures. There is a real question of what value this information may be either to the Commi ssion or to the general public. If this information is requi red merely to sati sfy somebody's curio usity, then it certainly is going to involve a lot of work on behalf of the political parties, on behalf of the Commi ssi on, and will necessitate needl ess expenditures and further staff at all levels. With respect to the

section on registration of political parties,

Section (

c) requi res a party that does not have four seats in the Assembly to provide the Commission with a lis t of 2,5 00 persons who have taken out a membership in that party. it would seem to us that this is an unne cessary invasion into 201

Friday, 25 July, 1980 the affairs of a political party. Membership in a political party is purely a personal matter and as such information about one's membership does not have to be or should not have to be shared with either the Com mission or the general public. I can think of no other situation where a person has to divulge his membership in a political party. So that

section is compl etely unacceptable. I am aware that in other jurisdictions that require the registration of a polit ical party, that there is a requirement of a minimum numb er of candida tes seeking election. I believe under The Federal Elections Act it is 50 and in the province of Saskatchewan it is a minimum of 10. That would be by far a more acceptable criterion than a membership list of a political party. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, on a point of order. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I was just making some notes; I wonder if he could just repeat his last point again, about the Saskatchewan system as being preferable. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, the comment I made was that under The Saskatchewan Election Act, there is a requirement that a party field a minimum of 10 candida tes before it is considered to be a registered political party, or before it can apply for registration.

Sect ion 14 (2), one of th e requ irements for registration of a political party ind icates that the party, accompany its application with a statement of its finances, dated not earlier than 90 days prior to the date of application. There is a question as to the need for the statement and if such a statement is to be required, then certainly it should be an audit ed financial statement. I don' t think it takes very much guessing to see how one can very easily circumvent this requirement.

There is no mention made of trust funds as being part of the statements that the political parties have to present to the commis sion and I think that if such a statement is required, trust funds, or a declaration of trust funds be mandatory. The requirement that cash on hand and deposits in fina ncial in stitutions, that that information be provided, does not pr ovide any meaningful information.

The requirement that the statement be as of at least 90 days prior to applica tion for registration creates the very distinct possibility of infusing massive funds into a party prior to that date without requirement for disclosure. Again, th e ques tion arises, why this extreme concern about di sclosure of a party's fina ncial situation where there is virtually no limit, or very few rules as to how these mo neys are to be spent? There is the question about the period which the financial statement covers.

We would suggest that if financial statements for polit ical pa rtie s are a requirement for registrat ion, then all political parties should report on a calendar year rather th an a nu merical or fiscal year, as is referred to on a numb er of occasions in the bill. On the

section dealing with contributions and donations, I want to first of all speak on

Section 24, which I have to be very frank, I find very difficult to comprehend. If it says what I think it says, then it would prohibit all parties from soliciting mem bers or supp ort ers for dona tions. think a li teral

interpretation would lead one to believe that.

Section 25 deals with moneys col lected at a general meeting. There is a contradiction between

Section 25 and

Section 28 that follows.

Section 25 indicates that during a general collection, that only th ose ind ividual amounts over 25 .00 need be recorded,

whereas in

Section 28, there is reference to all donations or contributions of over 10 .00 being recorded. So there is an internal inconsistency on that one page. Perhaps a solution to that might be the provision in The Federal Election Act wher e th ere is a ma xi mum th at may be col lected at a ge neral meeting, on a per capita basis, after which there has to be some disclosure of where the contributions came from.

Section 26(2) deals with the situation where a fund-raising event, such as a supper, and where part of the ticket or the fee, or whatever it may be, is allowed for tax credit pu rposes. Now, the suggestion in the Act is that this be one-quarter of the charge of the ticket or fee, whatever it may be. We would suggest that, again, we look at the Federal Act and only that portion of the ticket which excludes the actual cost of the meal, drinks, wh atever the case may be, be allowed for a tax credit. You can run into the situation, dealing with

Section 26, where in fact the Treasury of the province of Manitoba can be underwriting the costs of a meal or drinks, wha tever the case may be, and I don't think that was the intent of that particular sec tion.

Section 27, and I suppo se it is consistent with the spirit of this bill, would virtually permit unli mited spending by a candidate, because it states that a candida te may spend his own funds for a campaign and if he wishes receipts, then it would appear he would have to disclose his expenditures. Cert ainl y from experiences in jur isdictions that have no limits on expenditur es and something similar to

Section 27, we would find that that would be highly una cceptable.

Section 28(1) , and this is that contradiction that I referred to before, for each contribution of 10 .00 or more, there is a requirement for a receipt; but in

Section 25 previous, there is no requirement until you reach the 25.00 mark. I simply cannot resolve those two sect ions as being compatible. There is, in

Section 28, I would think, a considerable bias against donations from members of a trade union. The

section states that where th ere is a contribution made by a trade union is excess of 10 cents per month per member, then each memb er of that trade union would have to have a receipt issued to him or to her. That seems to be a very compli cated, un necessary procedure. If one is to follow through with that, then I think, in all fai rness, one should also make tha t requi rement of any organization or ass ociation. Each member should then be notified that a donation of 1. 50 has been made to a particular party on his or her behalf, or to any corporation .

I th ink shareholders should be simila rly notified and policyholders, whatever the case may be. I think if it is fair for one, it certainly should be fair for the other. There is another question - it is a very small thing, in

Section 28 - but in 28(

a) we talk about each contribution of 10 .00 or more, and I am 202

Friday, 25 July, 1980 assu mi ng, because in a subsequent

section it states that donations in kind are not to be included, or a part of that 10 .00, but when we get to the trade unions, for some reason we ta lk ab out to tal contributions, and by definition of "contribution" on Page 2, we are dealing with donations in kind, and it se ems to me that th ere are two di fferent clas sifications here, those who give dollars, they are dealt with one way; those that give dollars and/or provide donations in kind, then there is a different treatment for those people, and that is certainly of some concern. In

Section 28 there are a couple of lines there which appear to be redundant. I don't know what the significance of that is. lt deals with receipts and it states that where the political party or candidate is registered the receipt shall show the registration numb er of the political party or candida te. That seems to have already been dealt with in a

section immedia tely prior to that,

Section (c).

Section 31 de als with contributions from uninc orporated groups and here I presume that we are dealing with gr oups which are more clearly defined in other Elections Acts. We are dealing with unincorporated associations or organizations. I would presu me that in this case we are talking ab out compa nies, societies, syndicates, firms, partnersh ips, eo-owners, although this isn't clearly spelled out in the bill.

Section 30 deals with trust funds, and there is a question as to whether trust funds are allowed or prohi bited under this Act.

Section 34 ind icates that only those persons, candida tes, official agents or chief financial agents and parties are allowed to accept contributions on beha lf of a political party and sudd enl y we have the tr ust funds being mentioned in

Section 30, 31, and 32. In

Section 28, there is a requirement that receipts be issued to those persons making contributions in excess of 10. 00, yet in

Section 30 there is mention made of records being kept of those contributors who make contributions of over 25.00. Now, it seems to me that what that is saying is that while receipts can be issued to a contributor for a donation of more than 10. 00, that information doesn't have to be recorded. And here we have a situation where no records are being kept but receipts are being issued and I think there needs to be some clarification between Sections 28 and 30. Back to the trust funds: In

Section 31 (2), there is a requir ement th at th e name s of pe rsons or contributor s be recorded, but that no receipts be issued . Now, this seems to be a circumvention of

Section 28. lt is also interesting that

Section 31( 2) refers to persons, corporations or trade unions, but excludes unin corporated groups, societies, ass ociations, firms, partnerships, and so on, so once again, if the bill is intended to provide di sclosure I think it fails, as we can see from

Section 31.

Section 31 (3) states th at th e commi ssion may req uir e any tru stee or tr us t fund to provide information or to file a return disclosing the sou rces and amounts making up that trust fund. We would suggest that the word "may" be replaced by the word "shall." Furthermore, there is a question as to whether the onus should be on the trustees of the trust fund to provide this information, or would it not be better for the information to be man dator ily provided by the chief financial agent of the party or of the candidate? Perhaps the easiest way out of this situation would be to prohibit all trust funds.

I understand that it has been done in some provincial jurisdictions they have allowed int erest from these trust funds to be used in political campaigns. That's perhaps a second best. Prohibition would probably be the easiest. We'v e heard reference before toda y about accepting contributions from persons or indi viduals ordi narily resident outside of Manitoba. This I would submit is com pletely unenforceable. I sim ply can't compr ehend how a commission would be able to prohibit, let's say, my brother living in Saskatchewan from donating 10 0 to me to donate to a political campa ign.

I don't think we'd want to get into a position wher e we would be shadowing every Manitoban to see where he or she was getting their donations from. There's rather a curious dou ble standard involved here. I am not aware that any provincial jurisdiction in Ma ni toba prevents me from donating to a campaign in its province. There is nothing to prohibit me from making a contribution to the Ontario party or to the Alberta party or to the Newfoundland party, but it would appear that there would be a prohibition of money coming into Manitoba. it' s rather difficult to understand.

Yet while we have these restrictions on ind ividuals, th ere appears to be virtua lly no rest rictions on corporations. By reading

Section 32(

b) as long as a corporation carries on its busi ness in the province then it is entitled to make a contribution to a political party. I would presume that means if a corporation sells even one widget in the province then it, by law, is entitled to make a contribution. The

Section (

c) strikes at the very nature of the method in which the New Democratic Party operates and I suspect of some of the other political parties in Manitoba. We, as a political party, find it rather difficult at ti mes to separate our activities from provincial or federal aspects and it seems to me this one strikes certai nly at the heart of the New Democratic Party and I suspect one other party.

Section 32(

d) is referred to in the

definitions and I have no idea what had been intended there but if one looks at the definition of contribution, it refers to

Section 32 (1) (

d) and no such subsection exists in the Act. The tr ansfers th at are allowed for politica l pu rposes in Sections 33 and 32 are - well there's really nothing to them. The provincial pa rty translating 1, 400 to the federal party during a federal campaign is totally inconsequential and I think the reverse would also be true. I' d like to leave that

section and go on to the

section on returns and statements. I' ve mentioned before that we feel that the statements provided to the comm ission should be on a calendar year rather than on a fiscal year. I think this would give a better me ans of com paring the political parties. If, in

Section 36 where an audited statement is to be forwarded with the return from a candida te or chief fina ncial officer of the candidate, then we would suggest that the name of the auditor be submitted with the name of the official agent to the retu rning officer at the time of nomination. And furthermore, 203

Friday, 25 July, 1980 we would suggest that, as in the federal Act, that the fees to be paid to the auditor be paid out of the public treasury, rather than by the political parties. Sect ion 38 is rather a curious se ction. In subsection (

a) it requires that persons or trade uni ons, hav ing made aggr egate contributions in excess of 250, be reported or that their contributions be disclosed; there is no such requirement being made of companies, corpor ations, associat ions, whatever.

Section (

b) provides that the aggregate amount of donations between 25 and 250 be disclosed and I would submit that this a wonderful oppor tunity in which one can bury all sorts of contributions, without any need for public disclosure. And

Section (

c) I suppose is the

section which we could very easily lump all non-individual, non-trade union donations. Certainly if the intent of

Section 38 is to provide the public of Manitoba with a disclosure as to who, in fact, finances political parties it falls far short of the mark and , in fact, that sect ion reveals considerable bias.

Section 39 (1) requi res that a statement of the election expen ditur es at the constituency level be made within 90 days after the election and yet the

section dealing with the provincial parties requires that the statement be made in conjunction with their subm ission of their annual statement. What this would mean is that if we had an election, let's say in March, then the provincial party would not have to reveal or would not have to make a statement until at least a year down the road. In other words, there is that one year's gap between exp enditure and revelation of what expenditures were made.

Section 40(1) and (2) deal with the fina ncial arrangements that a political party may be invo lved in. I think again that this is an un necessary invasion into the busi ness operat ions of a political party and it would be an ongoing thing because one would ha ve to provide information on a continuous basis from year to year as to the financial status of tha t party insofar as its loans are concerned.

I think if that is to have any meaning, for whatever reason, as to what a political party's financial situation is, it can very easi ly be fud ged by tr ansf erring loans to constituency associations and my understanding is th at th ey don't ha ve to declare their fi na nc ia l situation on a yearly basis, and you can very easily subvert the intent of

Section 40. it's too wide open.

Section 45(3) is the

section I was wanting to refer to previously. Our

interpretation would be that it would make trust funds illegal, because it states no person who is not recorded as the chief financial officer of a political party or a candidate, or as a deputy of the chief financial officer, shall receive or accept contributions for, or on behalf of, a political party. The final comments I would like to make are on the

section dealing with advertising. I think this section, while it is the only

section of the Act that limits expe nditur es, easily lends itself to abuse. By reading that

section one isn't informed whether or not the costs of prep arat ion of any adver tising material, whether it be newspaper advert ising, television advert ising or whatever, whether the costs of preparation are inclu ded in the costs of advert ising. And these costs of preparation can be done long before any election; they can also be fai rly substantial. And while we have a limit of 40 cents P• name, at the central party level, and 25 cents at tt constituency level or vice versa, whatever it may b those limits can be very easily circumv ented if the1 is no clear definition of what we mean by advertisin costs.

As was questioned before, does advertisin include pamph lets, ballpoint pens or wh atev1 political parties used during campaigns. That sectio is wide open under this bill. The other concern we have is that there is n comment or nothing said about unsol icite adv ertis ing.

We're very well aware that durin previous federal and provincial campaigns there wer groups, special interest groups, who would advertis on TV; who would advertise in the newspapers; wh ha ve gone so far as to publicly name thos candida tes that they support or are opposed to, an• I would presume if they do have some influence 01 the voters, that type of advert ising is not covered b this bill. Nor is there any mention made abou advertising by a government department, a Crow1 Agenc y, or any gr oup th at is funded by th• government of the province.

Certainly I think tha that is one area that there should be some furthe thought given to. I'm aware that in the Saskatchewa1 Act it's very clearly spelled out as to wha government agencies, departments may or may no do during political campaigns.

In summing up my presentation on The Electior Fin ances Act, I think that I'v e tried to ill ustrate tha there are many areas that would require furthe1 study, that there are apparent contradictions withir the Act, and again, if it is the intent of the Act tc show to Manitobans that political parties engaged ir political battle fairly and on an equitable footing that from our viewpo int, that is not the case. Thank yoL very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Bucklaschuk, I'd like to ask whether you are appearing on behalf of the New Democratic Party or whether th ese are personal views that you have. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: These will be on behalf of the New Democratic Party. MR. WALDING: Do you have a copy of your remarks? I found that your references were very complex and a little bit confusi ng, I had some difficulty following all of them. Do you have a copy? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I can make these available. MR. WALDING: I'd like to ask Mr.

Bucklaschuk whether the New Democratic Party is of the opinion that a new Election Fin ances Act should be a matter of consensus between the parties, either between the parties thems elves or of a legislative group or by some other means, or should it come in as a matter of government policy and be voted in on that basis? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Our feeling is that the bill should be brought in on a consensus basis. MR. WALDING: I'd like to Mr. Bucklaschuk if the New Democratic Party has an opinion as to what the 204

Friday, 25 July, 1980 enefits of being registered as a political party would e? IR. BUCKLASCHUK: We have not given that any :>nsideration, Mr. Walding. IR. WALDING: Can you adv ise us wha t the enefits of not being a registered political party 1ight be? IR. BUCKLASCHUK: lt would appear to me that 1e purpose for registration would be to enable th ose ersons that make contributions to the political party ) be able to receive a rebate on part of their olitical contributions. IR. WALDING: Do you have an opinion as to the 3lative benefits of being a registered, as against a on-registered party? �R.

BUCKLASCHUK: Wel l, certainly financ ial ,enefits, yes. Without the provisions of rebates it rould make it very difficult for the New Democratic 'arty to operate, simply because of the sou rce of the 1ajority of our donations are from individuals who se The Tax Act to fund the party. �R. WALDING: Have you been able to assess the lisadvantages, such as various controls and various •fficial forms and that sort of thing, that might tend o offset that? IIR. BUCKLASCHUK: No, I have not. IIR.

WALDING: Is that a function that the matter tas not been addressed by th e party or is that a unction of th e time involved in making this bill tvailable to you? iliA. BUCKLASCHUK: The problem, as I indicated, s that th is is such a fairly comple x piece of egislation that unfortuna tely we just have not had he time to go into all aspects of the bill. I wanted to leal with some of the glaring problems that we can oresee with this bill, but we have not been able to jet into all the ramifications. III R.

WALDING: Are you suggesting to us, then, that here might be other concerns that you might have if rou were given more time to study the bill? III R. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. III R. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. III R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Sir, on 48 ( 1 ), would you not �oncede that when it states that total expenses ncurred for advertis ing, that that would include the �ost of preparation of advertising? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: lt may, but just glancing at it, I'm not so certain that it would. MR.

MERCIER: Sir, you said there was no provision in the Act th at prohibi ted another group from advertising. Is that what you said? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. MR. MERCIER: What do you think Sect on 47 means? MR. BUCKL ASCHUK: That might very wel l be interp reted to prohibit that type of advertising but one can even get into dealing with addressing an advertisement to a particular philosophy, which may be associated with the particular party, and without spelling out the name of that party the message could still be quite clear. MR. MERCIER: I have no further questions.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. A numb er of the things which he has mentioned we intend to deal with concerning the detail sections of the bill, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: I am sorry that I didn't hear all of the witness's presentation, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to ask two questions which I consider important. One is whether, in your opinion, sir, you believe that more time is needed before this bill is referred back for third reading? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: The answer to that is, yes. MR.

USKIW: My second question is whether or not, in your view, and the party's view, that legislation dealing with elections ought to be non-partisan legislation, rather than endor sed by a majority in the Assembly? MR. BUCKLASHCUK: The answer to th at is it should be non-partisan. MR. USKIW: Okay, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, there see ms to be a requirement in this legislation for an awful lot of receipts, and I just wonder ed if Mr. Bucklaschuk had any idea of what it costs the party to issue one recei pt. In fact, Mr .

Cha irman, I ha ve heard examples, depending on the bu siness, ranging anywhere from a few cents, although I haven't heard that, I have heard figures as high as 2.00 or 3.00 or 4.00. I just wond ered whether you have any im puted value. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: We ha ven 't done any calcula tion of the cost of providing recei pts, but there is no question that the costs are considerable. While we are on this, I think one of the problems we have with the bill is that there are proba bly somewhere in the nei gh bourhood of about 200 people who can issue receipts.

I am speaking about the chief financial officer for each candidate, the candidate, and/or his deputy. lt would seem to me that when you have that many persons being in a position to issue receipts there is also a distinct possibility of problems with receipting taking place, or misuse of rece ipting. 205

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. DOERN: So if you are issuing a receipt for 1.20, then when you consider labour and materials and stamps and so on, it might eat up a good portion of that contribution? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: A good portion, or perhaps more than what the donation itself was worth. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr.

Bucklaschuk could expand on his opposition to the making available, I guess, of lists and it sounded like he was saying that the mem bership lists, in effect, would have to be made publ ic and I wond ered in what sense he was objecting to that, whether it was confidentiality or privacy or whether it had an adverse effect on a person's job opportun ities, or what. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I think all of those concerns are valid.

I indica ted before that if a person does become a member of a political party, that is purely a personal matter and it 's not a matter for the com mission to concern itself with or for the general public. There may be problems in disclosing this information in terms of job availability or items of that nature, yes. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, the intent of the bill would appear to be to he lp political parties but it may, in effect, have the oppo site effect of hindering, and I ask Mr.

Bucklaschuk whether he feels that th ere will be additional costs, or considerable additional costs to political parties as a result of the bill, in terms of filling out forms or making out rece ipts? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Na turally, with the requirements of receipting and recording and so on throughout this Act, there will naturally be further expenditures incurred by the political parties. MR. DOERN: I would also ask Mr. Bucklaschuk, he singled out Sections 25 and 26 and so on, and he seemed to suggest that in this legislation there is un necessary in terference in the day-to-day operations of a political party.

Is that how he sees the bill in general, or some of the specific sections? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I presume that in addressing some of those sections, what I was trying to point out was there were some glaring incons istencies in terms of disclosing contributions to a political party. I don't think there is any problem as we, through the federal New Democratic Party, already do discl ose the names of contributors and so on to our party, as do the other parties. lt is the amount of recording and rece ipting and so on that is required throughout this bill that would just create considerable non productive work. MR.

DOERN: Holding aside individuals who would make up a good portion of contributors and so on, and taking the attit ude to wards bu siness and towards labour or trade un ions, would you char acterize this bill as pro-busine ss and anti-union? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I would certainly char acterize it as being anti-union. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, again, if Mr. Bucklaschuk could explain a point that he made.

He seemed to argue that it was unfair to ask trade un ions to issue recei pts in regard to po litical do nations, and that he said tha t if this was a req uirem ent, tha t all or gani zations th at ma de contributions should have individual breakdowns or individual rece ipting. Is that what he was arguing? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct . lt seems to me that for all the various associations that do exist, there seems to be a particular bias against the trade union associations. MR. DOERN: A final question, Mr. Chairman.

In regard to donations to or from other provinces, you do not feel then that it would be an enforceable provision, so that if you wanted to make a donation to a friend or someone in the same political party; or some friend or supporter or relative, or whatever, from out of the province wanted to make a dona tion to someone in Manitoba, you feel that there would be little problem in doing so and a great deal of difficu lty in discovering that type of a donation? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. We would feel that it is completely un enforceable. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR.

MERCIER: Sir, you made a comment that this is anti-union, and in particular reference, I think you made it to

Section 28, requiring the issuance of a receipt. Is it not clear to you, sir, that the rece ipt, first of all, has to be issued by the financial officer of the party, not the trade union; isn't that correct? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. MR. MERCIER: Would you not concede, sir, that what this does is guarantee to the emplo yee a tax deduction, and how can th at be an anti-union stance? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, the tax benefit of a tax receipt for 1.5 0 would be something in the neighbourhood of 1. 25, or perhaps 1. 00. MR. MERCIER: it's in excess of that; that is the minimum.

We are certainly prepared, if you want the minimum amount to be increased, we are certainly prepared to consider that. But that's the minimum, the absolutely minimum amount. The contributions will likely be in excess of that. I am suggesting to you, when you guar antee to an emplo yee a tax deduction, a tax benefit, how can that be an anti-union stance? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Again, I question the amount of the benefit to the individual member. I don't see that as being any great benefit to the individual member and I would still say that it would create considerable work for the political party. MR.

MERCIER: Are you then saying, sir, we should eliminate this provision that would require a tax deduction, a tax receipt to be given to an emplo yee 206

Friday, 25 July, 1980 f a union who makes a contribution, we should im ina te that from the Act? IR. BUCKLA SCHUK: do not feel that the limination of that particular clause would create any ardship for the individual contributor. IR. MERCIER: Do you want it in or do you want it ut? IR. BUCKLASCHUK: Out. 'R. MERCIER: You want it out? 'R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. •R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I gather, then, that you 3el, Mr. Bucklaschuk -(I nterject ion)- in spite of M.

Enns here, I gather that you are concerned about he amount, and that you might favor a slightl y ligher amount but you certainly would not favor a Jwer amount? Mr. Mercier seems to be suggesting hat for a 10 [ donation there should be a receipt ssued, so I assume that we are talking about the tmount as opposed to the princi ple. iliA. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bucklaschuk. II'IR. BUCKLASCHUK: From the thought that we 1ad given to this

section we were concerned about he mechanics of having to issue individual receipts o the total membership of a particular union. lt is a Jroblem. I am not even so sure that we as a party �ould have access to th e mem bers hip of th at Jarticular union, that is their own information. !IIR. DOERN: So your preference would be that if a Jnion submi tted an amount of money on beha lf of its members, you would give some sort of a bulk receipt as oppo sed to in dividual receipts. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I would submit that trade unions should be treated in the same way as any other asso ciations. MR.

DOERN: But that the rec eipting might be done in bulk from the political party to the trade union and that the individual rec eipting might then be done by the union itself. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I am not even so sure tha t could be done. I have no idea. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: So you are saying then, sir, because of the difficulties the party would have in issuing tax receipts to members of the union that you would rather see this claus e out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bucklas chuk. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: We would prefer to see trade unions treated as any other associa tion. MR.

MERCIER: You have said that this Act has an anti-union bias. Can you sug gest any other provisions of the Act that, in your opinion, are anti union? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I believe I did refer to one or two other situations. I could prob ably check through the Act where - well, an example, in

Section 38 it states that every chief financial officer of a political party or candida te shall file with the Commi ssion at the time of filing a statement with the Commission, a return setting out the total amount of value of contributions received from each person or trade union. Now there is no reference being made there to a company, corpo ration, ass ociation or whatever. MR. MERCIER: Sir, are you aware that under The Int erpretation Act of the province of Manitoba that the word "person" includes corporations and they are thereby included within the word "person "? MR.

BUCKLASCHUK: That may be the case, but I believe there are sect ions in the Act where one would believe that the term "persons" refers to an indi vidual human. MR. MERCIER: Wher e th ere is references to ind ividuals, and th at clearly means an in di vidu al wherever that is made, but I sugg est to you, sir, that th e word "p erson" under the provisions of The In terpreta tion Act of the provi nce of Ma nitoba inc ludes corporations. Now if you are not aware of that, I can un derstand that. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I was not aware of that. That is a legal point. MR.

MERCIER: Can you tell me, sir, of any other provisions of this Act that you consider to be anti union? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I would have to go back thr oug h my notes again. I believe I didn't make mention of two or thre e instan ces wher e my interpr etation was that trade un ions were treated differently than any other group. MR. MERCIER: And what are tho se, sir? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Okay, may I just have a min ute to go through my notes here? I presume I would have the same problem that I had previous ly with my

interpretation of the word "person,"

Section 48(1) advertising done by any person or trade union. MR. MERCIER: I suggest to you to there, sir, that the same int erpretat ion appl ies, th at inc lude s corporation. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: I would agree then. My question then, does the word "person" refer to, besides corporations, com panie s, societies, ass ociations and so on? MR. MERCIER: lt covers them all, sir. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That was my question. MR. MERCIER: You have no other sections then? 207

Friday, 25 Ju ly, 1980 MR. BUCKLASCHUK: Just a very quick glance, I wasn 't able to spot everyt hing. MR. MERCIER: Pardon me? MR. BUCKLASCHUK: At a very quick glance I was not able to spot any other areas that I would . . . MR. MERCIER: Then, sir, I suggest to you, sir, that the only end to union bias is that of the ND P Party, who, because you are saying tha t you are not prepared to go to the trouble of giving a tax benefit or a tax deduction to mem bers of the unions. MR. BUCKLASCHUK: That may very well be your

interpretation, it is certainly not ours. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Bucklaschuk. Mr. And rue Anstett on Bill 95 and 96. MR. ANDRUE ANST ETT: Mr. Chairman, honourable members, it gives me great pleasure to be back in this room and having the privilege of being able to speak to you rather than sitting qui etly at the other end of the table.

I would like to thank you for hold ing public hearings on this bill, not just so I could have that opportunity, but hopefully so that the hearings you hold and the briefs you hear will be of some benefit to you in amending these bills and hopefully im proving them. I have comments on both Bills 95 and 96. I would like to start with Bill 95, and congratula te the government for a piece of progr essive legislation.

I think the government's heart is in the right place and it has attempted to sort a Jot of the perennial problems that electoral officers and the public have had with this the old Election Act in the province of Manitoba. Ho wever, I would like to, because I have some familiarity with the old Act and with legislation in other jurisdictions, and because I have spent more than a do zen years resea rc hing, studyi ng, or admin istering election acts in various provinces, I would like to spend some time going through this Act with you, because I do see some problems. Some of them are major, some of them are minor.

First of all, on page 2 of Bill 95,

Section 1(m). Manitoba was a leader in provi ding for ho spital patients to be able to vote in elections. Very few other jurisdictions, even today, provide for that.

One mi nor expansion can im pr ove the system we presently have, that is to allow out-patients who are in the emergency ward of a hospital, who have been taken there over the supper hour, they were in volved in an automobile accident on the way to the poll; the y could be sitting in that emergency ward or office, or wh atever we want to call it, usually in the same area near the entrance lobby as the poll box is situated after it is finished canvassing bed to bed and not be allowed to vote. They may well have been on their way to the polls.

In past elections we have had several people after polling day complain that they sat with the DRO and the Poll Clerk while they waited for X-rays or waited for a doctor to see them , who were unable to vote.

I personally cannot see any problems with expanding this provision to include these people, if the definition is drawn tightly, and I am sure legislative counsel is capable of that, and that mi nor expansion will go some way towards enfranchising a small number of people. it is not a significant numb er, but I think the principle from which we operate when we draft legislation of this type is to expand the franchise and make sure that the exercise of the franchise is available whe never pos sible. The kind of admini str ativ e disenfranchisement that takes place because of the way

an Act is written is the kind of thing I would hope we all want to avoid. I would point out to you that

Section (

p) which provides for the presription of forms by the Chief Electoral Officer is an excellent section, but I would ask members to take note of the fact that this allows the Chief Electoral Officer for the first time to design the ballot. Members have always guarded that quite jealously, as the one form that they would not allow the Chief Electoral Officer to design, and in most statutes it is exempted. I commend the government the CEO the flexibility to do, to make the ballot more uniform with other jurisdictions.

I think that is the direction we should be going, and when it is bound in statute it is not a question of the government or the Leg islature bein g unwi lling to chang e the se things, it is just that is certainly not a priority. In fact when I was inv olved in these things I was often told that Election Acts are like leaky roofs, when there is an election on you can't fix them, and when there is no election on the sun is shining and the rain isn't coming in, so it takes some iniative to amend

an Act. Therefore, I would caution both sides of the House to amend this Act carefully and be satisfied with the product, because I am not sure you are going to see it again for a while. lt is not the sort of legislation that governments give priority to. (I nter ject ion)- I missed that comment, Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Just an aside to Mr. Doern. MR. ANSTETT: lt looked like it was coming this way. On page 5, the appointment of the Chie f Electoral Officer. The provisions for the appointment of the CEO and his continuance in office in

Section 5 and 6 are basically the same as they were in the previous Act. Most jurisdictons in Canada differ in the fashion in which they appoint the Chief Electoral Officer, but all changes in legislation in the last 20 years in this area have provided, where they may have taken a progr essive step in this appointment provision, have provided that the appointment should be somewhat sim ilar to the way we appoint our Ombudsman in the province of Manitoba.

Al berta and Ottawa presently have statutory provisions for special appointment arrangements with a consultative process that involves a comm ittee with members from all sides of the House. I am not suggesting however that if you appointed someone un der simi lar pr ovisions to the Om budsman, that would not be a permanent appointme nt. I think it should be a permanent appointment because of the natur e of the office.

Whereas you appoint the Ombudsman, I think, for seven years with one seven-year renewal. I am not sure that is required. I think that in other provinc es where they provide for legislat ive consultation on the appointment, they have seldom, to my knowledge, had - in fact I know of no example of where the appointment has caused 208

Friday, 25 July, 1980 any kind of partisan friction between the members of the committee. I know the appointment of Jean-Marc Hamel in Ottawa in 19 66 was done through an ad hoc committee because the formal process had not been established, but the government perceived that as being the kind of procedure that they wanted to follow, and they did that. I know in Alberta in the summ er of 19 77, th at was done with all party representa tion, and de spite the fact th at the government party in that province at that particular time had an overwhelming majority, the decision of the comm ittee was completely unanimous.

So I think when legislators get together to work on these kinds of problems they can come to tho se kinds of reaso nable solutions, so I don't see it as being an issue that would inv olved partisan ship. In fact, if any thing, it would remove any possible suspicion that there is any partisan involvement at all. That is why on

Section 5(2) I would suggest that it be provided that the salary of the Chie f Electoral Officer be placed under the Legislative Assembly appropriation. I know that Mr. Mercier, the Attorney General, in his opening remarks on second reading suggested that the Chief Electoral Officer was being removed from Executive Council and placed under the Legislative Assembly.

Ho wever, that is to some extent an admin istrativ e change which is not reflected anywhere in the Act and I think it certainly wouldn't hurt to place it there so that it can't be changed back by a di fferent go vernment, a go vernm ent of the same persua sion, or a government of a different persuasion. I think there may be people in office in this province, I hope they are not here now and I don't think they are, but there may be some who wish to interfere in the operation of the chief electoral office 20 years down the road. Put the guarantee in there now and you won't be faced with that problem later on. Under

Section 9(2), the Honourable the Att orney General's comments on this provided that the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer would have authority to act for the CEO in the event of his illness or in capacity unde r other Statutes, other than The Elections Act. Perhaps legisla tive cou nsel could advise as to whether or not that is what's provided here, but as I read it, it does not apply in particular cir cums tances here to, for example, The Electoral Di visions Bounda ries Act. I think perhaps the addition of the phrase "or any other Act" may be required.

Under the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have dramatically expanded and stated the specific powers the CEO has during an election. I think the manner in which they are laid out is excellent. I think the expansion of the power in 10 (3) of the CEO to remove any elect ion officer is excellent.

I know that in the review, upon which many of these charges are based, the request was made only for the power to remove a returning officer, but oftentimes, if you are in a poll situation where there has been a problem, you may not be th ere in attendance with the returning officer, so the CEO certainly may find, hopefully it wo n't happen too often, that he will requir e the authority to remove. There is one power missing, though, for the Chief Electoral Officer, and although it may be contentious, I would suggest to you that it has merit.

When you run an election, when your Chie f Electoral Officer runs an election, in effect what you are saying to him, because no body wants to be perceived as interfering in any way with the job that is being done, you are saying for 35 days you are God. You make the decisions, you call the shots. Nobody is going to second-guess you, nobody is going to tell you how to do the job. In fact, even under the replacement provisions for election officers, it is a written report to go to the Lieutenant-Gove rnor-in-Council after the fact. There is no consulta tion.

For 35 days he is God and I can't see it working any other way. You need a final authority. You will have situations in an election, then, that are not covered by the powers you have given the CEO. One member mentioned in the House, I think it was Mr. Doern, the fact of a power failure in the Carlton East by-election in Ontario in 1974, I think. I can give you a much closer example.

In 1977 at the Health Scie nces Centre, because of arrangements that were made for the taking of the vote, with a hospital poll, at 8:00 p.m. in the even ing, two sets of poll officials had nowhere near fin ished canvassing the floors on which they were working. Now, we can fault the officials for not doing the job fast enough, or we can fault the returning officer for not setting up enough polls, but the fact of the matter was that at 8:00 o'clock in the even ing, there were two floors in the Re-Hab Centre, and I think one floor in another part of the complex, that had not been touched.

The prohibitio n that we have, the very specific prohibition we have, prevents the returning officer from extending polling hours. We didn't have that prohibition in 19 77 and the Chief Electoral Office directed the poll officials to continue polling the vote in those polls. lt wasn't challenged by any of the parties because they knew it was the right thing; it made common sense. Since the Act didn't specifically prohibit it, it was done. This Act would prohibit that.

I would suggest to you that you may wish to consider that emergency power and, with notice to candida tes and parties affected, it certainly is not the kind of power that any CEO is going to abuse. If you believe your CEO is the kind of person who would abuse that, you wouldn't have appointed him in the first place. With regard to

Section 11 (1) , I would suggest to you that 11 ( 1) (

d) and (e), which prohibit certain persons from serving as enu merators or poll officials, or returning officers for that matter, are somewhat punitive.

I would suggest that (d), which provides that if I am convicted, as an individual was in Turtle Mountain with respect to the 19 66 election, I think, in 19 68, more by cir cumstance than by any intent, that this Act would prohibit that man - at the time he was certai nly not in his early twenties - but had he been in his early twenties he would have been prohibited for the balance of his life, a life in which - he obviously took the job as a returning officer initially because he had an interest in politics. He wou ldn't do it if he didn't.

Anyone who kno ws anything about being a returning officer certainly wouldn't do it if they knew what was in volved unle ss they had an interest. So what we are doing is we are saying that an individual who, by the ci rcumstances of the situation, has made a mis take, perhaps through no intent, but is still convicted, and we mu st convict if th at 209

Friday, 25 Ju ly, 1980 situation exists - I don't fault the Crown Attorney or the judicial process in th e Turtle Mountain 19 68 case, but that ind ividual is still prohi bited from servi ng. I realize similar provisions existed before; I think there is some merit in considering putting a limitation.

Now, we have, I think, a five-year limitation later on in the Act with regard to candida tes and others found guil ty of an offence we will allow a candidate to run again after five years if he is gui lty of some gross misdemeanor under the Act, but we will not allow a person to serve as an enumerator if they are convicted of adding people to the lis t imp roperly, even though the y may have done it with the best of intent. So I have some hestitation about that.

I will come back to that whole question later when I suggest to you that allowing a candida te to run again for gross misdemeanors under this Act, after serving a fiv e-year way station in the halls of sanity before he gets back here, is somewhat different than what you say in here. In Bill 96, if he does that, he can't ever run again. So I would sugge st that we should be looking for uniformity in these provisions, not because we hope to apply them, but because if we do, we want them to be applied uniformly and with some un iversality to the whole population.

I don't agree with the position held by some, although I do respect it, that th ose who have a position of trust in the electoral process, should suffer more severely than those who do not. I believe in the electoral syst em, all of us have a position of trust as participants, and the obli gations that are placed upon us when we accept an office is no greater than the obl igations placed upon the elector to fulfill his role. I would suggest to you that

Section 17 , which provides for the appointment of Returning Officers, has been a se ction on which I have made suggestions to several governments in this province and in other provi nces over the last half-dozen years, and in none of the cases where I reco mmended it has it been accepted, so I am not holding out great hope that it will be here. Ho wever, it has been accepted in Nova Scotia, in Ottawa, in Prince Edward Island, and that is, that when a Returning Officer is appointed, he holds office until he dies or resigns, or is dismis sed for cause.

The reason I sugge st that to you, is that there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into training and developing good Returning Officers. As most of you can imagine, any of you who have ever been in the position of reco mmending to the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Council the appoint ment of a particular individ ual for returning officer, generally the people who are appointed are not people with any special expertise in electi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-pe26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf pe26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	91b9669daa2766bf68b859de086f27c5f7d6d72c

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