Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 July 1980 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 27, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-pe27

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 Harry E. Graham Speaker FRIDAY, 25 JULY, 1980,8:00 p.m. Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies 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,Ho n. 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 Riel St. Boniface Elmwood 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 Os borne 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 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Arnold Brown (Rhineland). MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the commit tee to order. We have a quorum. Mr. Anstett. Mr. Anstett, before you start, have you any idea how long you are going to be ? MR. ANDRUE ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I realize we Nent for almost an hour and a half before the supper Jreak. I would think no more than another half-hour )n Bill 95, and probably a similar time on 96. Several nembers have prevailed on me to skip the more nsignificant items.

I do hope, when I do so though, :hat those of you who have been work ing on 1mendments will catch them in your clause-by-clause :o nsid era tion, because oft enti mes, min or 1mendments are just as im portant as im portant 1uestions of principle.

With respect to important questions of principle, ust before we did break for supper, I was suggesting o you that there may be merit in considering the :omplete repeal of the vouching provisions in 85 and 'ubstituting therefor a provision that an eligib le •lector can take a declara tion, oath or affirmation, ,tte sting to his or her eligibil ity, and be added to the st on polling day. That is do ne in some jur isd ictions.

Other Jrisdictions completely close the list and don't even llow vouch ing, so there is justification in terms of omparable legislation elsewhere to going either way. lut in terms of th e Attorney -Gener al's voic ed oncern about exten ding the franchise and extending pportunities for persons to be on the list, I think 1at is probably the single most important proposal 1at I would suggest you consider tonight, that is, to uly provide a completely open list, with a check (stem. Now, obviously one of the objections to doing that, that anybody can get on the list. I don't believe 1at that is true.

However, with the tightening up of 1e penalities and the enforcement sect ions in this :atute, there i�, no question that you will have Jport unities for 'prosec ution. I can tell you, with )me author ity, that after the 1977 elect ion, a Jmplete analysis was done of every single swear-in the province of Manitoba, and it was di scovered ere was one unqualified elector who was added to e list, one out of something in the neighbourhood ' 8, 000. That was at an advance poll in St. )niface. I won't identify the elector; I don't even member the name, so I can't. So the incidence of abuse of this provision is very im.

On the other hand, if you really view it, •uchi ng, the requirement for a voucher, as some rm of protect ion, then I think we are all being a bit 1ive, because cer tainly any person who fraudulently shes to get his name on the list wi ll have no Juble finding another party prepared to assist him. 1d if this is being done in an organized fashion, which I am certain it is not, because I am certain none of the org anized and recognized parties in Manitoba would condone it, but if it were being done in tha t fashion, there is nothing tha t the Ch ief Electoral Officer or his staff could do to prevent that, whether it was with a voucher or without a voucher.

If people decided to play that way, you would only catch it after the fact. So in this type of instance, enforcement is far more im portant, in terms of ensuring that the Act is adhered to, than some arbit rary provisions that may restrict the franchise. So I wou ld recom mend very strongly th at a provision for a voter to add his own name on the list by taking a declaration or oath of eligibilit y is cer tainly adequate to the task of provi ding for openness on the list on polling day. If you decide that you wish to keep vouch ing, I would suggest that the change that has been made in

Section 85(2) is undesirable.

Section 85(2) had a previous equivalent in the old Elections Act, which provided that the voucher had to be from the same electoral division. In rural areas, that is fine; in urban areas, that's fine. But the present Act requires that the voucher be from the same polling subdivision. In rural areas, that is probably not much of a problem, but in urban areas, where polling boundaries divide floors in large blocks and go down the middle of streets, you can no longer take Joe across the street to go vouch for you on polling day, when you realize you are not on the list, because that might be the poll bo und ary.

You are first going to have to ascertain where the boundary goes and then whether or not you can find a neighbour who is willing to go to the poll with you to swear you in. So, cer tain ly, change that back to electoral division, would be my recom mendation, but resolve the whole problem by taking out the requirement for a voucher, and you will have gone a long way to making it a very open and progessiv e list. Once again, a polic y quest ion with regard to

Section 90(1): I would recom mend to you gentlemen this even ing, that you consider removing the right of candida tes and scrutineers to have certificates to vote at another poll. Any time you allow the transfer of the right to vote, give someone a certificate that entitles he or she to get a ballot somewhere else, you are introducing opportunities for fiddling with the system, to put it quite bluntly.

I am not suggesting that this is done on a regular basis, but I am suggesting that where you allow a transfer of a ballot, it is awkward enough to be doing it with the ret urning officer 's own staff, and the potential for abuse is there, but when you are doing it with the scrutine ers of the candidates, the potential for abuse of that poll offici al's certificate is pretty wide open. So I would suggest that candid ates or scrutineers don't really need the poll offici al's certificate to vote.

Most of them vote at advance polls now, and are di rected to do so, because the last thing the parties and the candi dates want them to do is to be worried about voting on polling day. Every time there is a 219

Friday, 25 July, 1980 close elect ion, you hear the stories of the scrutine er who was so caught up in doing his or her job in the poll, that they forgot to vote thems elves, and of course those stories come from all sides, and the closer it gets, the more of them there are. So the parties generally ask their people to vote in advance, and with the expansion of the advance poll, either the way it is proposed in the bill or with the introduction of the continuous advance, I don't see that being a problem.

The Chief Electoral Officer in Manitoba has had a problem, as have his colleagues in virtually every province and federally, with remote voters. Perhaps Indian Bay in the constituency of La Verendrye is an excellent example, where there have been thr ee electors for probably the last ten elections; one· of them is the DRO, and one is the poll clerk, and one is the enumerator. There are other polls of very small size where the remoteness of the situation requires the establishment of a poll.

These people are paid handsomely for the exercise of their franchise. lt just so happens, I think, that at Indian Bay last time there were only two votes out of three eligible electors. I guess the enum erator didn't show up, because the DRO and poll clerk certainly must have voted .

I would sugg est that in the provisions for the mail in ballot, that this should be drafted very tightly, because certainly it opens a door, and you wouldn't want that door opened very widely, that the best way to reach these types of electors and save a substantial amount of money - I can't tell you exactly how many polls it would involve, but perhaps you have staff who can examine that; ther e are a fair numb er. it would be in the dozens of polls that are so small and so remote that there is no other way of consolidating them into other polls; th at the extension of the mail-in ballot to these persons would certainly be a cost-savi ng measure and would enable them to exercise their franchise at no greater convenience or inconvenience than the present system that is being used.

I have some trouble with

Section 10 3( 1). I would sugge st that by telling the voter, or by actually performing th e act in front of a voter who has returned his ballot and says, I decline to vote, that you then proceed to deposit it in the ballot box. You are then basically telling him that it is a rejected ballot, that there is no status to him declining his vote. The previous act provided that declinations would be separately set aside and recorded in an envelope for declined ballots. I am not sure how that should be treated.

I know some academics have sugg ested in the past that perhaps what we need is a special category on the ballot, none of the above for those who decline, but it has been argued that most politicians are afraid to adopt that provision, because they are concerned about who might win the election in that instance. I only suggest that a voter who declines his ballot should not be insulted by immed iately having the ballot placed in the ballot box as if he had voted anyway.

When he takes the step effect ively of disenfranchising hims elf, denying the vote, although he has appeared to be recorded as voting, he is exercising a protest. The DRO right in front of me denies his protest and hammers his ballot into the box and slips the bible back over the hole. Mr. Chairman, I am skipping a few items, but ' have some trouble skipping too many. A quick point,

Section 106 requir es that spoilec ballots be endorsed as spoiled. In every jurisdictior of which I am aware, it specifically provides that the spoiled ballot not be opened, because this is a vote1 who marked it incorrectly and wants a new one, bul this provides that the DRO has to open it up anc write "spoiled" across the front of it. I think ther e is something wrong there, and I think that shoulc definitely be completely restructured, because � spoiled ballot should not be opened, otherwise b� ascer taining the non-intention of the voter one car also void the secrecy of his ballot.

The provisions for political activities on polling da� are a rewrite that have considered some of the problems that parties have had with signs and flags and banners and car bump er stickers on polling day, but I don't think they go all the way. I think some re thinking will have to be done with regard to the location of signs on private property, particular!� homemade signs, for which the candidate or his official agent were not personally responsible. I arr not sure how the provisions of this act would stanc up on those grounds in a court of law if it were challenged. I have similar reserv ations about

Section 11 1( 3). The real intention of these sec tions, as I understand them, is to limit activity in or at the polling place on polling day in terms of maintaining some order and decorum in the poll, and to prevent the amassing of large numbers of supporters of one candidate who might then attempt to intim idate voters. I think the previous sections in the act got a little carried away with all the di fferent kinds ol intimida tion, etc., that could on, and I don't think we completely unpsyched ourselves from that problem with these provisions.

There are, I would submit. easier ways of suggesting that polling places are sacrosanct on polling day and ther e will be ne activity in or around them, but the demand thal someone who has been carrying a bumper sticker or his car for 35 days has to scrape that sticker off al five to eight in the morning if he is going to carr� voters to the polls seems just a bit much, and I kno"' people don't do it. That basically is still req uired. have been in the position where I have asked people to rem ove signs and bumper stickers, and I don'l think it is worth di scussing the reply I got.

I am sure any of you who have been in a similar position 01 who have been candida tes and advised some of you1 people tha t this was th e requirement, werE immedi ately told what they thought of tha req uirement. I think it is possible to avoid the necessity o di scarded ballots. I have di scussed this with severa people, and I realize there is a dif ference of opinior on this. However, to my recollection, Manitoba is thE only jurisdiction in Canada that makes a provisior for di scarded ballots. Now either Manitobans an notoriously bad in arithmetic, or this requirement i! not needed.

I would suggest it is not need ed . Othe jurisdictions seem to resolve their problems with pol book balancing versus ballot numb ers without havin! a provision for di scarde d ballots. A detai le< balancing requirement would seem to suffice in m� opinion. I won't go into detail on that, because if yoc see merit in the suggestion of av oiding this additiona 220

Friday, 25 July, 1980 lgory, which just tends to confuse poll officials I scruti neers, then that will req uir e a major riling of this whole area on counting ballots and polling night count. But I would also sugge st that <;�re again, to my knowledge, the only jurisdiction has these two categories called, rejected but lcted to, and objected to but counted. One of the ;ons we have had these categories, is because we this other provision which was not very common, t allowed our re turnin g officers to rule on ·ything that the deputy ret urning officer had been stioned about.

That's the reason those ballots set aside that way. Since we've removed the tision that allows returning officers to do this md check, this second guessing of the DROs' nt at the official addition, I can see no reason to l these special categories, because a judge, on a :ial recount, at either level, county court or court 1ppeal is required to count all the ballots, so re not sett ing them aside for the benefit of the Je nor for the re turning officer. · But we are tling, with discarded and the two rejected but lcted to and objected to but counted , three llopes and three categories which can confuse officials.

Once again, in this case, I do not feel simpl ifying the system voids any protec tions 1 fraud or any other problems. I think they were :ed in th ere because of some very specia l :erns; I'm not sure they're necessary. also do not belie ve it is necessary to count the -in ballots on election night in the returning e. Since the re turning officer is the DRO and his tion clerk is the poll clerk, the last thing you want 1 have them at the crucial time, when results are ing in, and problems are occurring, to hive off some cl oset with two or three scrutineers and 11 the mail-in ballot.

I think the counting of that >t should be allowed the next day, or even as as the official addition, when hospital polls are 1ted. vould suggest that in

Section 131 with regard to 1udicial recount, particularly su bsection (3), that a Jtory provision be placed here to provide that the 1 or his representative shall be notified and be ved to attend at the recounts. Many of the things h were learned by the Manitoba Election Office, · the 1973 election, and formed a good number 1e re commendations in the review upon which a j portion of this new Act is based, where based 1 the attendance, with permission of the county t judges involv ed in the recounts and then later Court of Queen's Bench judges involved in the rovert petitions.

That permission had not been ted before, and to my knowledge the CEO had been involved, even as an observer, in any of e proce edings before. Without knowing what ly went wrong it's very hard to make mmendations on how to set things right. ·. Chairman, on Page 70,

Section 14 2, provision ade for a report of the chief electoral officer on results of an elec tion. However, neither in that ion nor anywhere else in the Act can I find ision for the CEO to publish the poll by poll Its of the election. I hope this is an omission, I � it's not the intent of the government, after two books have been published, to rescind the irement that these poll by poll results are made able. Certainly the cost of publishing the results has not been high, and my understanding is they have been very well received by both the political parties and by academic users. Mr .

Chairman, jus t in a brie f aside, Sec tio n 14 9(1) : My und erstanding of the provisions in most legislation with regard to elections and the bett ing thereon, is that it prohibits betting with regard to an attempt to influence the result of the election, which is provided in 149(2). I don't understand why two candidates, or a candidate and a friend can't bet upon the outcome of the election. I see no reason for this prohibition , and I am sure tha t it will be universally ignored. (lnterje ction)- The Member for Lakesides suggests that I may owe him a bottle from the last election.

If this bill doesn't pass and prohibit the paying of that bet, and if he can document the debt, I'll certainly pay up shortly. The definition in

Section 177 of election material, appears to be in potential conflict with the definition of advertising in Bill 96. I would suggest that the re qu irement of the phrase "or opposed to ," in addition to "persuade voters to vote" for a particular candidate or candi dates may be required. The one sect ion provides that advert ising in support of or in opposition to is control, but

Section 17 7(1) (

b) refers only to advertising in support of. Now that may not be a serious conflict, but if there's cons istency in the

definitions, the chief electoral officer admini stering one statute won't be in conflict with the Election Commission administering the other. I would also suggest, in a similar vein, that in

Section 17 7(2), the reference is to official agent, and throughout this bill for tha t matter, but in this particular case, it conflicts dir ectly with the reference to financial agent or - I think it's just financial agent for the candidate under The Election Finances Act, so that we determine whether the agent of the candidate will be his financial officer or his official agent or what, and there's some consistency in those terms. Or perhaps it's the intention of the Attorney General to requir e that the candidate appoint two separate people to perform these two separate roles. I don't see that separation as being necessary. However, if it is felt it's necessary, perhaps that's why the

definitions are di fferent. Personally, I would strongly recommend that it be one person, because that will lend to some cohesiveness in terms of the

interpretation of the Act and the im plementation of the advert ising and other rules, by the candidate's organization.

Section 17 7(4), I would suggest under 17 7(4)(

b) that the name and address of the publis her is the official agent, or chief financial agent, and since his name is already requir ed to be on the document, 17 7(4)(

b) is redundant and may caus e some confusion. I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, in concluding, that there is a requirement for a delay provision in this bill, or in the Act really, for the time when there are future amendments. Several Election Acts in various provinces and in Ottawa contain a provision whereby, even though the bill has reached the amending bill or the original statute, have received Royal Assent, they shall not come into effect until after the CEO has publis hed a notice in the Manitoba Gazette, or the Canada Gazette or whatever, 221

Friday, 25 July, 1980 ind ica ting tha t he has prepared the necessary documents etc., forms, schedules and guidelin es that are necessary for impl ementation. So that there is never any question if an election or by-elect ion is called, as to whether or not the CEO is ready. If he is not ready, those amendments don't apply, and you know well in advance whether or not they wi ll. The Federal Act contains a six-month notification provis i on. I think th at time period wou ld be adequate, so that if the CEO feels he is ready, he gives notice and in six months those provisions come into effect . Mr.

Chairman, that concludes my remarks, just barely within the half hour time limit you suggested on Bill 95. I would recommend to the House that Bill 95 is cer tainly a progressive piece of legislation, and certainly, to use the idiom, has its heart in the right place. I would suggest, however, that there are a lot of little things, and certainly there are some who could say that many of the things I mentioned where little things, nitpicking - there are a lot of little things that need to be cleaned up. I'm not sure that you're going to be able to do that tonight or before this session ends.

I understand there's a will to be out of here as soon as possible. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that if that is the case, that to clean up a lot of those things, particularly if you accept some of these suggestions that have been made with regard to some major changes, continuous advance, the changes in revision, swe ar-ins - some of those things, the whole question of the ballot counts on election night, and stre amlini ng that, elimina ting some of the categories, so that the whole thing can be impr oved and simplified, will require more time than I suspect you may have available to you in the next several days.

So unless there is some other answer, I would certainly recommend that, if you cannot solve some of these concerns, at least those that you perceive to be legitimate, that you set Bill 95 aside and work those things out, unless of course there's some reason to proceed more quickly with it Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate at this point to stop and see if there are any questions on Bill 95, before I proceed to Bill 96. I don't know what your will and pleasure is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Anstett.

Obviously this is a topic which you are very familiar with and which you are very concerne d about, and we appreciate the comments that you have made. I believe that we should have the questions on this bill, finish this bill now and then proceed with Bill 96. Mr. Enns. HON. HARRY J. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really only have one question, and that question, I supp ose, is more appropr iately di rected to honourable members opposite. You fellows, after the last, I think, it's something like two hours, must have serious or second though ts about want ing this bureaucrat to join your caucus. MR.

ANSTETT: I won't answer that MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr .

Chairman, I can appreciate that if one spends two hours, motionless, sitting on these hard chairs, that there may be son problems in some parts of one's anatomy, but ap� from that, I think the contributions made by tl can di date in Springfield for the New Demo cra 1 Party were excellent I would like to ask one question, notwithstandil our witness' expertise in this area, and that whether or not it wouldn't be wise to comple te remove the process of recounts away from tl judicial system, and instead replace that with a bo• made up of the political parties involved in tl elect ion, each appointing an equal number of peo� and a third party, so to speak, to break the tie, th is agreeable to all sides.

The reason why I ask that question perhaps obvious to you, and that is that I recall two inciden where there were judicial recounts, in which case c a similar situation with respect to a marking on ballot, we had two ju dges ren dering opposi decisions on the same kind of a situation. In ea• case coincidentally, it was agains t the Ne Democratic Party.

Now the judges may have h< their reasons for di ffering in each case against tl New Democratic Party, but it seems to me the would be nothing wrong with having a bo• com posed of the political parties who are inv olved the election who would adjud icate on tl questionable ballots, if you like, or on the recoUI providing they both agree on the composition of th body and the neutral person which would break a ties that emanate from such a mee ting, or at such meeting. MR. ANSTETT: Mr .

Chairman, I'm fam ilia r wi some of the problems that occurred both in tl recounts after the 19 73 election and 1977, and son of the revelations that came out of the controvE petitions after the 1973 election, and from a persor point of view, would much rather leave the decisi• as to the marking of ballots in the hands of judicia l However, I would like to see, and I skipped over th in my comments on the bill, the provisions for t counting of ballots, and which mark shall and sh not be allowed, simpl ified to be more in line with t federal provisions and the provisions of several oth fore ign countrie s in the Commonw eal th, wl basically say that if the intention of the voter is cle; the ballot is counted, all other things being equal. you can place that into the statute with sufficie clarity that doesn't allow the use of magnifyi1 glasses to determine if there's a dot, a reflex d behind the X, which would then be a second ma1 which would disqualify the ballot, and other, let's blunt, preposterous things like that, which to corre Mr.

Uskiw, didn't always go agains t the N1 Democratic Party, but tended to go three dif fere ways during the recounts after the 1973 electic although cer tainly one always notices the decisio that affect one the most I did not keep a running tally to see who was me adversely affected. If Mr. Uskiw feels that it was t New Democratic Party, I'll concede the point. MR. USKIW: In that one incident MR. ANSTETT: That might well be, but I certai1 saw them going every which way. I would prefer see the jud iciary do that, because what in effE 222

Friday, 25 July, 1980 1'r e going to have, if you have tha t thir d ependent perso n, after the two

partie s are ·esented, is a judge who's going to make the isions anyway. So I'd just let him do it. For the 1e reason, I have similar concerns about this :tion commission. USKIW: I'm wondering whether you, sir, can 111 the two incidents that I make reference to, the in St. Boniface and the one in - having been 1lved as a bureaucrat at the time, in the election md the one in Wolseley, in which case, as I recall the two ballots were iden tical but favouring lrent candida tes, of course. ANSTETT: Mr.

Uskiw, I think if you ask the ;ent chief electoral officer, I think he would find tocopies of those two ballots, which may have n illegally made at the time, in his files. I do recall n. USKIW: But what I wanted to have you confirm 1at that in fact did occur. ANSTETT: Very definitely. USKIW: My example is real and there should :oncern over that. ANSTETT: Very definitely, two identical ballots, ' regard to marking, were ruled in dif ferent ion in Wolsely and St. Boniface in 1973.

In both lS, as it turned out, those rulings were against New Democratic Party, but those kinds of nolies at recou nts, I suggest, can be corrected •roviding for a better system for counting ballots. I of my comments tonight with regard to these stions are not geared simply to the better 1in istration of elections by the Chief Electoral :er, or making the job easier for you people. :�use of the concern Mr. Enns noted earlier, I am ng that my bureaucratic expertise at this point be lent to the benefit of the people of Manitoba im prove the syste m. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw.

USKIW: With respect to those two incidents, th ere an explanation attached with each sion? Did the judges explain how they arrived at conclusions? ANSTETT: No, there was no explanation for ·ulings. However, the rulings, in each case, were ;istently applied throughout the recount. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the witness d clarify that.

He says "consistently applied." ANSTETT: In all of the recounts to which I was bserver in any way, shape or form - and I did always sit through an entire recount, in fact, I : I have only sat through two - I found that the gs by the judges on questionable ballots were nally consistent to their reco unt; they treated all es alike. •w. the next judge, in another room, may well been doing something comple tely di fferent, and I think anyone who sat in on recounts can attest to that. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know if there is a solution to the problem, but it seems to me that it's extremely di fficult to understand how a judicial system could render two decisions, one opposite to the other, on the same kind of evidence, and that becomes extremely difficult to (

a) accept, and (

b) understand. That's why I question whether that is the best place to have that kind of adjudication. MR. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I would only suggest, as I did earlier, that when judges are having trouble with the laws you gentlemen make, then it's up to you to clean up the legislation. In that particular area, I think there is some clarification required in terms of the mode for marking ballots. MR. USKIW: One last point, then.

Does Bill 95 clean up those sections sufficiently that we might be assured that there would be no ambiguity as to how one would interpr et a situation like that which occurred in 19 73, di ffer ently, one judge versus another? Have we done the job in this bill to get away from that problem? MR. ANSTETT: Absolutely not. There has been virtually no change in the method for marking or the description of the marks that shall be allowed on the ballots that shall be counted. I was going to make some suggestions on that, but I have skipped that because I think Mr.

Doern will be speak ing to tha t dur ing your cla use-by-clause considera tion, because I did point that out to him when we had a di scussion on the bill. MR. USKIW: Two questions. One is, in your view, is there sufficient time between now and the close of this ses sion to com plete consid eration of this document in a way which would be commendable and re sponsible, or would you prefer that this document be set aside and further studied during the course of the period between this session and the next, and that we deal with it finally at the next sessi on? MR. ANSTETT: Mr .

Chairman, I think in a way that's not a question I can answer. MR. USKIW: As an opinion. MR. ANSTETT: I think the Attorney-General is in a much better position to answer your question. He is more aware of which of the conc erns I have expressed this afternoon and this even ing to the committee, hold merit , in his opinion, and if he intends to correct even a large minority of the points I have raised, I would suggest that it would unwise to do so in a hurried fashion near the end of the sessi on. But I don't even know when the session is going to end; if you've got another two weeks, you could well clean it up.

MR. USKIW: The last question is, in your opinion, should legislation with respect to how elect ions are conducted, should they be partisan documents or should they be cons ensus documents of the Assem bly? In other words, should all the parties be 223

Friday, 25 July, 1980 endorsing the legislation tha t shall govern the electoral process? MR. ANSTETT: Ideally, I would hope that that would always be the case. Much as this Legislature operated with its Rules Comm ittee for many years on a consensus basis, because those are the rules under which members were governed in the House, I would hope the same thing applies to the rules by which they are governed in the hustings.

That may not always be the case, and I can certainly see that within some of the areas in which I have some concerns, that there are going to be di fferences of opinion, but basically I think there should be agreement that the bill is the best that can be done at the time and meets most, if not all, of the legitima te concerns about its practicality. That's where my concerns are. I don't think anyone on either side would suggest that I have made my criticisms on Bill 95 from a partisan point of view, in fact, Mr.

Enns has gone so far as to compli ment me and sugge st I have done so as a true bureaucrat, rather than a partisan. I don't know if that is good or bad. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 96. Mr. Doern, on Bill No. 95. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just have one main question, and I wanted to commend Mr. Anstett for his excellent subm ission and to say to Mr. Enns that I don't know if he was int erested in it, but Mr. Anderson had his attention riveted on the speaker for two hours, so much so that I don't believe he has blinked in that entire period of time. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr.

Anstett if he could make a few remarks on the

section dealing with the suggestion that a commission should, in effect , regula te elections. His suggestion is the Chief Electoral Officer should run elections with additional powers and I understand that there were problems in Ontario with a commission, and I ask him if he could gi ve us a few examples of problems that he is familiar with, either in Ontario or in other provincial jurisdictions, with a commission. MR. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the commit tee, since the commission is established under Bill 96, I could perhaps answer that in my remarks to that bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 96.

BILL NO 96 THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I have to complime nt the government for taking on a di fficult task and cer tainly I can't qu estion th eir intentions, but I can say tha t compared to Bill 95, this is garbage. This is a very poor bill and for one basic reason.

When I first picked up the bill I started going through it and I said as I read clauses, because I am familiar with legislation in other provinc es, Ontario, Ottawa, Alberta, it was like putting a Dodge motor on a Ford chassis with a Cadillac body without modifying any of the parts so they would fit, and I'll will tell you, ye put gas in the tank and turn the key and this car going to fall apart. This Act, it is an adminis tratil and political nightmare. I think it will be a disaster fc the government that tries to impl ement it, eithc during or followi ng the next provincial gener elect ion.

Those may be strong words, I would like to � through the Act and do cume nt the case I a making, because I don't believe that this was dor intentionally. I just believe that the government h1 gone with several basic precepts, one of them th; contributions should be di sclosed. Cer tainly a admirable precept, it is one of the concepts upc which most election finance legislation is based; an seco ndly, that election finances should be someho controlled; and thirdly, that there should be sorr form of public subsidy - in this case the Tax Cred Program. Those basic concepts have been use elsewhere.

I don't think there is any malice here i the sense that these things have been put togethc this way, but I cer tainly belie ve tha t th ey ar unworkable and that this car is going to fall apa when you turn the key and start it up. First of all, in the

definitions I have already referre to the inconsis tency between one DE chief financi; officer of a candida te and the official agent for th candida te. Secondly, I think there is some potenti• danger in the definition of constituency associatio1 the lateral portion, which refers to an organizatio that holds itself out as the official association. I thin both of the two major parties represented here in th commit tee would have some concern about wh1 might happen in cer tain cons ti tuen cies in th province. I would also suggest that the end orsation re quir e under

Section 2 is extra work for the candidates an for the parties, since a similar letter of endorsation i re quired to put the candidate's name on the ballo There is no reason why the letter required to be file under the nomination provisions in

Section 53, believe they are, in Bill 95, 53(3), there is no reaso why Section (2) and 53(3) cannot be identical, an that one cannot serve the purpose of the other. However, my major concern on policy in this bill, i the first half, is the question of the establishment < a commission. I realize that in the last fifteen year many jur isd ictions tha t have decided that the wanted to assure the public that ther e was no undu influe nce in th e contributions of mone ys an perso nnel to parties, and that there was som limitation on campaigns, have gone several di fferer ways.

They have created special agencies such a this com mission to control election finance an others have em powered the Chief Electoral Officer t do it.

Probably the three best examples in terms < es tablished practice that we have in Canada, outsid of Qu ebec, are Ottawa, Ontario, and Alberta, an Quebec legislation I have to concede I have studie at some length and I still don't understand all th ramifications of the controls they have implemente and the bu reaucracy that they have is now in exces of the total staff of the Chief Electoral Office i Ottawa to im plement it, so maybe they don understand it and they are just adding staff until the do. But cer tainly in Alb erta and in Ottawa th legisla tors decided the most appropriate method wa 224

Friday, 25 July, 1980 to place the power to do th is with the Chief Electoral Officer. In Ontario, because of the Camp Commis sion on Electoral Ref orm , legisl ative reform, but the Fifth Report on Electoral Ref orm, they established a commission.

I am not sure that the members of that commission or the officers of the com mission or of the Chief Electoral Office, the Ontario Elections Office in Toronto, would want to say so publicly, but there have been tremendous conflicts between the two agencies, and those staff members on the commission have expressed, in a recent report they did on a compara tive survey of legislation, some frustration with the workings of the commission and its apparent ine ffectiveness.

Now, I believe the Attorney-General would not have introduced this bill with this provision if he was aware of those concerns, because I know he has a very serious personal concern about seeing that this legislation is enforced. He has indica ted that many times and he has indica ted tha t he certai nly doesn't want to be involved in it himself. That is th e first point about the commission. In Ottawa, the Ch ief Electoral Officer was empowered to appoint a commis sioner to be the enforcer, to be Mr.

Tough Guy under the act, so that the Chief Electoral Officer himself wasn't perceived as both setting the gu idelines, setting the rules, giving direction and also then coming down hard and being the enforcer. He has a director of election expenses wh o works with the parties and a com missioner who is separate from them. However, both the commissioner and the director of election expenses have the benefit of advice from an ad hoc com mittee of all parties recognized as political parties in the House of Commons. The mechanism that is obtained within the commis sion is there, but not in an offici al sense.

But you have gone one step further in setting it up this way . Ontario buf fered their commission by putting a bencher of the Law Society and several other people on the Commis sion and because there are three recognized political parties, the potential for tie-votes in the Ontario Com mission is almost nil. n fact, if the record of the Ontario Commission .>peaks to anything, it speaks to the fact tha t that Comm ission, when faced with a very serious partisan issue, will duck the issue rather than split on it, and there is some danger in that.

But what you have established is a situation where you have a six-member commission. On any partisan issue you are going to have two Prog ressive Conservatives on one side, two New Democrats on the other, if it is a serious partisan issue. Then the man who you have set up this com mission to protect, to keep him from being the enforcer, the policeman, the guy who doesn't have to make these decisions, just has to administer it, is now the tie breaker. Every time the party splits, it's not the Chairman who is the tie-breaker, it is the Chief Electoral Officer.

So the ostensible reason given by the Attorney-General in setting up the commission, to take away from th e CEO the onerous responsibility of making these partisan decisions, is a ::harade. We have a situation where the CEO is going to be buffered for as long as it takes both of the ·epresentatives from each of the parties to raise their hands on opposing sides on the issue, and to me that is just a totally unworkable proposition.

But more important, if Alberta and Ottawa have through, in Alberta's case two provincial general elections, and in Ottawa two federal elections, operated both with good enforcement and with prosecutions where necessary, using the CEO as the enforcer or his representative in the form of the Com missoner in Ottawa, I see no reason why that concept can't work here.

I think there is probably a universal agreement that the Chief Electoral Officer has to be completely non-partisan and above politics and that he has to not only be that, but be perceived to be that and have the utmo st confidence of the general public, the candida tes, the parties, and his own staff. If he doesn't have that, you will remove him under Bill 95. If he does have that, then why can't he do the job of the commi ssion under Bill 96, with an ad hoc advisory com mittee from the parties? What you are saying is, "We are setting certain terms and conditions for the Chief Electoral Officer to do this job.

We expect the same of the chairman of the commission, and everyone els e who is on the commission, to do the job in Bill 96, but we don't trust the CEO to do it ." I would rec ommend, Mr. Chairman, that the whole concept of the com mission be re thought in the examination of this bill at claus e-by-clause stage or, perhaps, if the Attorney-General wishes to consider it, during an intersessional review when he tries to get this car on the road.

I have some concern tha t the registration requirements for political parties are somewhat different than in other jurisdictions and different than what the Law Reform Commis sion recom mended, particularly with regard to provision (c). I am in

Section 14 (1) (c). My concern is especially with regard to the req uirement tha t 2, 500 mem bers, card carrying signed-up members of the party who, I assume, paid their dues or whatever, have to be su b mitted or sign the petition for application, or whatever. The Law Reform Commission recommended 1, 250 persons. I am not sure that party mem bership lists are accessi ble for that person. I am not sure they should be.

I am not sure that people who take out a mem bership in either of the two parties represented here tonight consider that their having taken out a mem bership becomes public information upon them doing so. Why place that kind of oblig ation on the people who join a new party. One of the basic tenets that I would hope we all subscribe to is that when the electoral system is designed, it is designed in such a fashion that it is accessi ble to all people, to new political parties as well as old, that we do not entrench ourselves to the exclusion of others.

If that's the case, if we subscribe to that, tha t we want to make it just as easy for a new party to come along, for a movement or whatever, if we subscribe to that, why set conditions for that new party tha t we cannot meet ourselves, tha t we would hesitate to meet? Now, if you want to do that, 2,500 persons on a mem bership list, which is open to inspection in the office of the commission, it's a public document, if you pass that, th en I would submit that each of the two parties represented in the Legislature should place their whole memb ership list, updated monthly, 225

Friday, 25 July, 1980 in the office of the comm ission, so anyone can go in and see who is a card-carrying member of the "Prairie Dog Party" of Manit oba. That's equity. So when we talk about acces sibili ty, we talk about some sort of fairness in terms of those other persons who want to participate in the electoral process. Simila rly, I do not int erp ret

Section 14(2), as some have in the media recently, in that it suggests that a complete statement of assets is required. In fact, I would sugge st all you care about is the coin that is in the sock, cash on hand and cash in the bank.

The Ontario legislation went a great deal further, and this is one of the problems when we borrow, if we really want an exact starting point from which to measure the financial position of the parties, then we are going to need a complete statement of assets. · In fact, I would suggest a statement of assets is far better than the requirement under 14(2), for purely admini strative reasons.

The requirement in No. 16 that the party file with the commission every change, within 30 days, means they will be filing every day 30 days late, unless they only make deposits every second day in financial institutions, in the name of the political party. That's what it says, "will report cash on hand and deposits in financial institutions and where those particulars change, will notify the commission, in writing, within 30 days of the change. " Does that mean the commission gets a copy of every deposit slip from the date of the original application?

I just can 't conceive - this car could explode when you turn the key, not just fall apart. I recognize that the Attorney-General feels that in Sect ion 24, the req uir em ent for registering constituency assoc iations would be onerous and would be an unnecessary bur eaucratic task. I agree. I don't have a problem with that.

However, I ask this qu es tion: Can th e constituency assoc iation be a designa ted agent for the central party in the collection of tax credit rec eipts, and if it can, what kind of mechanism is going to be used to dif ferentiate between moneys colle cted by the consti tuenc y association and moneys collected by the constitutency association as an agent, in terms of the public's perception now?

I realize some are going to be receipted and the others will have to be denied, but you know as well as I, that rather than turn down that donation, you will receipt it to the central party and, of course, you will work out some deal with the central party whereby you get a cer tain percentage back, as is done with all th ree national parties now that are represented in Mani toba with the federal scheme, and we politely call that reba t ing provi ncial donations. Those of us who aren't so polite call it laundering money. I don't know how you are going to get around that.

I'm not sur e that that means you should require the registration of the constituency associations and make them agents under the Act, but cer tainly, if you are going to allow them to be collection agents for the central party, you are into that whole nightm are. There are a whole series of contradictions which Mr. Bucklaschuk went into between 1.20 a year, 10.00, 25.00. At one point it is under 25.00 and at the other pont, it says "in excess of 25.00." I guess 25.00 exactly isn't controlled by the Act.

Section 25 refers to amounts under 25.00;

Section 30 refers to single contribution in excess of 25.00, but we also have references to 10.00 contributions. Throughout this whole

section of the Act there is some confusion in my mind - perhaps it is clearer in the minds of others - as to whether the word "rece ipt" means receipt for tax purposes in all cases, or whether some receipts are just receipts, and other receipts are receipts for tax purposes. If all receipts are receipts for tax purposes, then we need to rewrite of 25, 28, 28(2) and 30. There is a problem there. I would commend to the Attorney-General and his staff the federal definition of mar ket value with regard to donations in kind.

That is going to giv e you a problem. lt was the single most difficult area for the ad hoc committee in the House of Commons, and the Chief Electoral Office, to deal with. They worked it out, hammered it out, with the parties, and I belie ve they feel they have a good definition now. My personal opinion is that it appears workable. But I can tell you, in advance, you are going to have problems with that concept and perhaps something could be from Ottawa's experience. I am at a loss to completely understand - I have had three of four di fferent int erpreta tions, including my own, of Sections 31(1) and 31(2).

In fact, my first read ing on 31(2) was that it was intended to bury contributions rather than trace them. I decided that couldn't quite be right because legisla tive counsel wouldn't put that heading there if he didn't believe it was true. So I re-read it again and found that maybe there was the possibility it might shed some light on contributions.

I don't unde rstand them and although there may be those of you who probably think that that's unde rs tandable, I would submit tha t if I don't understand them, there are official agents that each of you will appoint in the next election who is going to have some di fficulty with those sections as well. I would suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff are going to have some difficulty writing guidelines of interpret ation for those sections. I would also suggest that

Section 31(3), the third word should be "shall," not "may." The kinds of req uir ements we are placing on ind ividuals, corporations, and trade unions should cer tainly be applied to trust funds. I don't think it is your intent to let them off the hook. On the other hand, let's not give the commission, or the Chief Electoral Officer, any choice in the matter. I can understand the concept obtained in Sections 32 through 33 and 34 with regard to the transfers of moneys.

Certai nly it would not seem desirable that the citizens of the province of Manitoba, regardless of their political persuasi on , should be subsidizing a liberal candida te in a Cape Breton South by-elec tion, which would be a serious infri ngement, in my opinion, upon the rights of those persons in the province of Manitoba who are not Li berals, and I gather there are some of those. lt would also be an attack upon the basic integrity of the system in other provinces, when tax money in Manitoba is being floated to those provinces to contest elections .

However, if some relative of mine wishes to run for office in British Columbia and I want to give him 100.00, I'll be damned if this legislation says that I can't give him 100.00. 226

Friday, 25 July, 1980 Now, there is another problem, and I don't know if tha t was cons i der ed . Tech nical ly, if I wasn't nominated three weeks ago, I could give him 100.00, but because I am a candidate now - some hairiness about the definition though - I can't give him that 100.00. If you don't hold an election for two years, I can't give anybody a cent out of the province, and neither can many other people.

However, I see no reason why the Attorney General cannot provide in the statute a mechanism whereby I can, or anyone else can, or the political party can, provide, from moneys that were not tax rec eiptable, from a fund drive, the donations to which are separated, separately receiptable, without a tax credit receipt, moneys to be raised to fight the Liberal campaign in Cape Breton South or the Progressive Conservative general election in Ontario this fall. If the abil ity is there to make thos e separate donations, then part of the objection to the out-of province transfers is elimi nated.

However, there is a bigger problem. An individual who does not normally live in Manitoba, who may come here one day a year to visit his parents, at Christmas time, because he was born and raised here, can't give one red cent to a political party in Manitoba; but a corporation that carries on 1/ 365th of its busi ness in Manitoba, equ ivalent to one night's sleep in Manitoba, can give all it wants. There seems to be some contradiction here between how we are trea ting indi viduals and how we are trea ting corporations. I don't know how you get around that.

I realize there is a problem; corporations not being individuals, can be much larger and can be carrying on busine ss in more than one province,

whereas individuals can hardly be resident in more than one province. We have come a long way from totally absolishing corporate donations; perhaps we don't want to make them as wide open as what they are.

Perhaps some restriction simi lar to the resident res triction on individuals is requir ed on corpora tions. it would be very hard to belie ve that a corporation that sells one tenth of 1 percent of its prod uct in Ma nitoba employs no Manitobans, and doesn't even have an office in Manitoba, but perhaps uses a manufacturer's agent as its pri mary distributor in Manitoba, can make donations to political parties in Manitoba; where a person who was born and raised in the province and, acc ording to

Section 35, the Rules of Residence, has gone to vete rinary college in Saskatoon, can't make a donation from Saskatoon because he has lost his residence in Manitoba and can't vote in an election. There are, to my way of thinking, some gross inequities. Now, I realize some of the concepts here have been borrowed from els ewhere, but the total context from which they were borrowed has not been moved with them, and when you borrow pieces and then try to fit them together, you have to think through the whole statute, and I truly belie ve that has not been done. The requi rement in most other ju risd ic tions requires that under

Section 36, when a party or a candidate is registered with the commission with respect to an elec tion, the name of the auditor is provided; you know who you are dealing with. it makes it a lot easier chasing down statements and ever ything else afterw ards. Also, in most jurisdictions that require that a financial statement be audited, which is a fairly onerous requirement, generally runnin g to the tune of 250.00 to 300.00 per candi date, that the Crown, the public, have provided some form of auditing fee, some base fee to subsid ize the cost of auditors to the candi dates.

That has been done in most ju risdictions which have required auditing, which have provided that the CEO not do the auditing, and thank you very much for putting that in there. I would have nothing but sympathy for the Chief Electoral Officer if he had to continue to do the auditing with this bill in effect. I would point out that under

Section 38, we have now raised the limit, the minimum amount that a person can give and then have to have his name revealed in the report of the party or the candida te, to 250 from 50 and 100 respectively to the candida te and the party. However, although we have raised that to 250, we have placed no such control in

Section 34( 1 ), which I bel ieve attempts to identif y the indi viduals in much smal ler amounts, I belie ve, because as I said earlier, I'm not sure what that means. So where you launder your money, if I can use the term, through a trust fund, an uni ncorp orated assoc iation, organization other than a trade union, etc., if it is less than 250, your name is going to be revealed because it is going to be in the public documents the commission has. But if you give it straight to the party, you can get away with 250.00. I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. We are saying, in

Section 38(a), tha t 250 is the dis closure level, but we are saying in

Section 31(1) that we are going to name the individuals making up the trust fund or the funds of the association from which the cont ribu tion is made, the indi vidual sources and amounts. So if 1, 000 people give 10 each to, I don't know, Gary Brickman and Associates, and they deliver tha t 10 ,000 to the Prairie Dog Party, the commission will then ask them to provide a list of the 1, 000 people who gave 10 each?

I certainly wou ld like th at cla rified, because the political party and th e candi date cannot accept a contribution from this unincorporated association unless the contribution is accom panie d by a statement provided by th e trus tee, provided by the assoc iation, indicating the ind ivid ual sources and amounts. How is the commis sion going to enforce that unless they ask to see that document? -(I nterjec tion)- They may ask to see that document. But if they don't ask, they have no idea if

Section 31(1) is being complied with. Mr. Chairman, I can't accede to the suggestion that we have a statute here which the Attorney General sincerely wants enforced, when we have a provision which says, we ll, maybe all those 10 donations will have to be reve aled, only if we ask, and maybe we 'll ask,

whereas in

Section 38 it provides that 249 and less will remain anonymous. Those are the kinds of inconsistencies in the putting of this automobile together that I have some di fficulty with. I am concerned about how all of this was borrowed and fitted together. Another very minor point, Mr. Chairman,

Section 39( 1) , the seco nd-last line in (c), I believe that after the word "charged ," the word "usually" should be ins erted, which would conform with the federal 227

Friday, 25 July, 1980 provision in that regard , or something to indicate that intent.

Section 42(3), as I mentioned earlier, I belie ve is exceptionally punitive and, once again, it is not consistent with the provisions in Bill 95. We ban a person from being an election officer for a lifetime in Bill 95, in one spot, but we allow a candidate to be guilty of an infraction and run again in five years, but under this Act, if we don't file a Statement of Election Expenses - and there have been probably a dozen candidates who have done that in the last 10 years in Manitoba, since that provision has been in effect - they can run never again. Forty years later, they can't run again.

Section 45(3), in my opinion - and I am cer tainly not infallible in interpreting the statutes as they have been drafted here, probably many things can be clarified - but

Section 45(3) appears to prohibit trust fund donations. If

Section 45(3) truly prohibits the raising of trust fund mone ys for the benefit of a polit ical party, then why don't we , right at the begi nning, require the statement of assets to include trust fund assets, do what Ontario did and say no more deposits to the trust fund; you may draw on the int erest and the principal, and nothing more. Because, in effect , if I read 45(3) properly, that is what you have done, you have frozen all trust funds in the province of Manitoba. I personally don't know if there are any in the New Democratic Party. I understand there are some in the Conservative Party.

I would suggest that the Attorney-General may wish to check on whether or not this is the meaning of this, because it is, I would sugge st , a very awkward provision in that it is inconsistent with the regulation of trust funds elsewhere in the Act. To me, it would appear to ban the raising of money for the benefit of a party, which I belie ve is essentially what a trust fund is, is a fund raised for the benefit of a political party. Mr. Chairman, I am tr ying to move on your di rect ion and skip a few items. I hope I am not doing so to the detriment of your consideration of the bill in clause-by-clause.

I would suggest to the Attorney General that

Section 47 is excellent. No further comment on it. I realize that one of the earlier speakers had some concern about it. I would suggest that 48( 1) is also excellent , with one qualification, and this is a dif ficult question, I don't know how you get at it. One of the largest component parts of any advertising program is the preparation of the ads, mock ing up, film work, commercial work, editing.

In fact, in some programs, particularly electoral programs which are short-ru n, you don't have the multiple exposure over six or eight months that most commercial operations have in the airing of radio and television commercials, you have a short ru n, so that the preparation costs can well be 50 percent of the total advertising bill. Now, no political party in the province of Manitoba is not going to do that preparation before the issue of the writ. If you do, you won't get your ads on until the day before election day. I don't believe those costs are covered. 1t has been suggested to me, Mr .

Chairman, that those costs are covered . I would appreciate, and I hope mem bers of the comm ittee would appreciate, some assurance and clarification on that, because I personally cannot see it. I had several other comments, Mr. Chairman, but tho se were minor. I'll leave the bill at that point, except to suggest that there have been suggestions that this bill treats indi viduals, corpor ations, trade unions, and other agencies, in somewhat dif ferent fashion. I can see some merit in that sugges tion, particularly with respect to the provision on transfers, but I am not completely clear on what is meant in

Section 31, so I don't know how much of a dif ference it is really going to make. There are some serious problems with regard to the inclusion of donation in kind in the contribution restrictions on out-of-province transfers. I would suggest that an election commission that wanted to, could argue that the Prime Minister of Canada could not come and make a speech on behalf of the political party of which he was a member, in the province of Manitoba, during a provincial general elect ion, because another agency, that federal political party, would be making a donation in kind above the limits that were provided.

I would suggest that the extension of that provision -(J nterjection) we ll, I would suggest that six months ago, the Attorne y-Gene ral's opinion would be some what di fferent; at least I hope, for the benefit of his party, his opinion would be somewhat dif ferent. So the whole question of personnel during elections, from the Prime Minister of Canada on down, becomes a question. Mr.

Chairman, as you can tell probably, I get kind of frustrated when I start to think about how these pieces fit together, and all I can suggest to the Attorney-General is that it would take far more courage on his part to rework this and take his time with it, and I think he would find that he would get help from all sides of the House and be respected for it, rather than try to amend it and put patches on what I think is already the beg innings of a patchwork quilt. Jt looks like we could have a very good Elections Act.

I think the beginnings are there, in fact more than the beginnings, and if this bill is amended and some of the concerns that have been expressed in committee have been taken care of, and in the House, I think basically we will have an excellent statute. But I don't believe that that's possible, I don't believe that the base you are work ing with in Bill 96 is adequate to the task of becoming what I think Bill 95 can become. So I would sugge st to the Atto rney -General, respectfu lly, that Bill 96 is not a workable instrument at this time and he should start from scratch and build a new automobile.

If he decides that, that is probably all the more reason to take his time in amending Bill 95 and making the two of them work together hand in hand, particularly if he wants to reco nsider the concept of an election commission. I don't think there is any question that the concept of the commis sion as spelled out in Bill 96 should be changed, and whether it is just the composition of the commission that is changed or the whole concept that is rethought is, of course, a political and policy decision. Mr. Chairman, those are my comments. Onc e again, I would be happy to answer any questions that I can answer. 228

Friday, 25 July, 1980 R. CH AIRMAN: Thank you , Mr. Anstett. Any 1estions from mem bers of the comm ittee? The torney-General. :t. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank ·. Anstett for his contributions towards both bills d ask him if he could indicate to the commi ttee 1ether he would consider re-employment with the vernment after he loses in the next election? :t. CH AIRMAN: You need not answer any est ion. :t. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, I wou ld enjo y swering the question. That would depend on two ngs, Mr. Attorney-General, one, how badly I lost d two, who won.

I might want to run again and if I >k employment with the government a second time !re is no way I would ever get involved in this 3in. I. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you y much, Mr. Anstett. Any further presenta tions to made to either Bill 95 or Bill 96? If there are no ther presenta tions are we prepared to start 1sidering Bill 95? Jl r. Mercier. I. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, just as a method of 1ce eding, and as I understand it Mr. Doern has a 1up of amendments, just 18 pages; we have 4 Jes. Perhaps if every member of the Comm ittee I both sets of amendments and we could proceed Je by page. .

CHAIRMAN: Could we have the amendments lributed? nu 95, page 1 pass. . DOERN: Mr. Chairman, we only have one brief far, I think we want them both. . CHAIRMAN: Page 1 pass, Page 2 pass. . ME RCIER: Page 2, Mr. Chairman, and haps, if this is agreeable as a way of expediting it, helps Mr. Doern, if he is agreeable, I can indic ate 1im, as we go along, which of the amendments ! he has are accep table to the government and �aps that would avoid the necessity of having to j each one. I can indicate to Mr. Doern that the amendment to Clause 1(

i) is acce ptable. . DOERN: Mr. Chairman, this might be an �eable method, but I am saying for the record are going to read them in? MERCIER: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. . DOERN: Do you want me to read the se ions in as we go? I assume they have to go on record, or not neces sarily? T ALLIN: Last night we passed The Dairy Act 32 amendments, page by page, I think. MR. DOERN: All right, we can do it the short way, try it. The first one then is agreeable, fine. MR. MERCIER: it is agreed to Clause 1(i). MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2 pass; page 3 . . MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, there is also one on 1(m), on the out-patients. MR.

MERCIER: Perhaps on that one, Mr. Chairman, perhaps Mr. Doern could explain that one further. MR.

DOERN: Well, I think the basic suggestion was that we all understand what a patient is, namely somebody who is in a hospital for a period of time, but there are people who are out-patients, somebody may be injured on election day and may spend a long period of time in the out-patient department and I certainly know from firsthand experience, once in regard to myself and several times in regard to relatives, that you can spend a great deal of time there and the proposed amendment would allow a person who was an out-patient to actually cast a ballot while in the hospital. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on that one we have not outright rejected it, but have some doubts about, the administrative difficulties involv ed in attempt ing to differentiate the in-patient and out-patient and the possibility of the out-patient I suppose even voting at two locations. We are just not clear on that one at this time and for that reason I would rather not accept it, I would rather have an opportunity to look at that one further. MR. DOERN: will accept tha t for now, Mr . Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2 as amended pass; page 3 ... MR. MERCIER: On Page 3, Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that would change

Section 3 to make clear that for the purpose of this Act every British su bject shall be conclu sively de emed to be a Canadian citizen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anderson. MR. BOB ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT

Section 3 of Bill 95 be struck out and the following

section substituted therefor: British subj ects being Canadian citizens . 3 For the purposes of this Act every British subject shall be conclusively de emed to be a Canadian citizen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. JIM WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see this provision being made. I just have a question as to why it is done by means of an amendment to

Section 3, which was put in there because of a change to 32( 1) . Would it not have been easier to add the words "or other British subject" in 32( 1) (

a) and then you wouldn't need

Section 3 at all. 229

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. TALLIN: lt could be, it's just that we have got the number there and it saves us having to renumber everyt hing. I am sorry that is a bad explanation and has nothing to do with the . . . MR. MERCIER: I would want to indicate perhaps to Mr. Walding, Mr . Chairman, that we will be at tempting to bring in tom orrow a sim ilar amendment to The Local Authorities Election Act through the Statute Law Amendment Comm ittee. MR. TALLIN: There is one other reason.

I haven't looked through the Act to see whether there might be another couple of references to Canadian citiz e.ns in there somewhere. I can't recall whether there are other qualifications of other people. MR. WALDING: lt could come under qualifications of candid ates. MR. TALLIN: Or qualifications of election officers or qual ifications of a special elec tion officer or something like that, I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3 as amended pass; page 4 - Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT Clause 4( 1)(

b) of Bill 95 be struck out and the following clause substituted therefor: (

b) the Chief Electoral Officer, the deputy chief electoral officer or an election officer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is just a cleanup, that it is red undant to include the rest of the words because of the way in which the positions are defined earlier on. Mr. Chairman, if you look at defi nitions, 1(

f) at the bottom of page 1, an election officer means a returning officer, election clerk , deputy retu rning officer, poll clerk, or revising officer. So it just cleans that up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 4 as amended pass; page 5 pass; page 6 . . . MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, we have a numb er of amendments here on page 5 and basically the intent of them is, first of all, to have the method of select ing the Chief Electoral Officer to be on the basis of a special committee of the Legislature; and secondly, to in effect strengthen the position of the Chief Electoral Officer so that the whole sec tion, which in· effect establishes a commission, would be significantly altered.

I believe that by adding to the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer, transferring powers to him, in particular powers of prosec ution, because of the facts that we are well aware of, where the Attorney -General was unable to prosecute because of, I guess, charges in one case that he was perse cuting a political party, and in another instance that he was favouring his own party, we believe that a strenthened Ch ief Electoral Officer could and should run the elections. This

section subordina tes the Chief Electoral Officer to an election commission. So this is a su bstantial series of rec ommendation which run counter to the government's proposal, an1 also in particular would have the Chief Electon Officer picked in a similar way to the Ombudsmar namely, by a Legislative Commi ttee which, I belie vE would guarantee the im partiality of that positior Otherwise, there is always a suspicion that th government may be selecting somebody who i either partisan or amenable to the govern ment's wa of thinking. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, I have som sympathy for the amendments proposed to

Section on the balance of the page. I think we should b moving in the dir ection of making positions like thi su bject to the rec om mendation of a speci! commit tee or an existing standing commit tee a perhaps opening up the Board of Internal Econom Commissio ners to appoi ntments by oppositio mem bers and perhaps, through that method, doin it. Becaise I think opposition members should be o that board too, whoever is in government.

I can't accept this now, but I can undertake, an1 have dis cussed in the past, a proposition like thi with some of the members opposite and I woul1 hope that for perhaps the next session of th Legislature we could look at a proposition like tha because I think we should be, but this would req uir some further consideration, not only by myself bL probably by our caucus. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. HARRY ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly t• support what the Attorney-General has already saic and as a member of the Board of the Intern!

Economy, I would want to indicate to the Honourabl Mem ber for El mwood that, in concert with th Speaker, there are investigations and enquiries bein made into this whole matter and particularly in th manner and way in which other jurisdictions del with the question about the operations relative to th Legislative Assembly, as such, which currently i under the authorization of the Board of Intern! Economy, totally compris ed of government member and, in support of what the Attorney-General says, can indicate to the Honourable Member for Elm woo that th ese kin d of changes are bei ng activel contemplated. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I make this proposal c speak against the present

section because anticipa te problems in this area. I think there's goin to be a lot of dogfighting between th representatives of the various political parties, it' simply designed to elicit that type of response. I als think there's going to be paralysis because of th fact that political parties wi ll be opposing on another for lesser and greater problems; and I als recognize that there have been concerns expresse by spokesmen for the Liberal Party, including th MLA and the president today, and I also think ther will be some problems in regard to the position < the chief electoral officer, who may, on occas ion, fin 230

Friday, 25 July, 1980 imself in an untenable or difficult posit ion. So I'm mply saying that our position is opposed to the :>ncept of an electoral commission and therefore rgue in favour of a strengthened chief electoral fficer and also an electoral officer by appointment f a legislative commit tee. IR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? 11 tho se in favour of Mr. Doern's motion. iR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, am I in order to make a :>int? I was going to save some time for the >mm ittee. IR. CH AIRMAN: Wel l. I called a qu es tion. lter ject ion)- Yes. Question. All tho se in favour of r. Doern's motion. R.

DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to question e procedure here. I don't know whether we're 1ting against what's in the bill or whether we're 1ting on my amendment, because I haven't really Jt the amendment. R. CHAIRMAN: Oh I see. That's right. R. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, may I make a point en. As I understand these series of motions, thr ee I 1l ieve it is. All tandem motions relate to the same ing, if we're going to have a vote on one, could we 1ree that we're voting on all of them so that we 1n't have to put motions through on each one when ey're all related. Just for the purpose of speeding it lt CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Doern, could you then make ur motion. �-DOERN: Yes, I think I would make the motion the sense of all of the items in terms of

Section 5. ' I would move

Section 5. �-CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we deem the >tion read? (Agreed) COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as lows: feas, 4; Nays, 5. I. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion defeat ed. =>age 5 pass; Page 6 pass; Page 7 - Mr. 1rcier. I. MERCIER: On Page 7, Mr.

Chairman, we are lpared to accept 10 (6). -(I nterject ion)- Well, I n't know whether it would be at the bottom of ge 7; I presume it would be at the bottom of Page We are prepared to accept 10(6), but we would e to have some time to look at 10 (7), the ergency powers, and some problems they have j in some other jurisd ictions. -(I nterjec tion)- We uld rather hold 10 (7). :. CHAIRMAN: Page 7 as amended pass; Page ras to hold. l1r. Walding. I. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, note a ographical error on Page 7 under (g). There is a letter missed out of the word "this." I wonder if we could correct that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Page 7 as corrected; Page 8 - Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Attorney-General whether he would reco nsider - I don't have a proposed amendment here - but if he would re consider the penalties prohibiting certain people from becoming election officers under (

d) and (e). In particular, it would seem to be excessively harsh in the sense of people who have commit ted an elec tion offence would be pr ohi bited for a considerable period of time from participating in elections. And bear in mind that this isn't at the hig hest levels, this includes anything from a poll clerk up. So I wonder whether the Attorney-General would perhaps hold tha t

section aside and reconsider whether or not he is coming down too hard on people who have com m itted an offence. - (I nterje ction)- 11 (1) (

d) and (e). MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this sect ion is ess entially the same as in the previous legislation. I can understand the concern and, again, I would undertake to review that further but, for the present time, it is the same provision as in the existing legislation . I would rather leave it alone for the moment but will undertake to consider th ose amendments to

Section 11 ( 1)(

d) and 11 (1) (

e) further. I would like to compare them with other election statutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Can I ask the Attorney-General whether 11 (1) (

e) is in the present Act, if that is just copied too or is it some thing . . . MR. MERCIER: Yes, except for the imp risonment

section part. Perhaps Mr. Tallin could help me. MR. T ALLIN: With the except ion of the term of impr isonment provision. lt is just within five years immed iately following the convic tion. The five years after the term of imprisonment was added, and I think we mus t have adopted it from some other place. I don't know why else we would put it in. Maybe that it is similar to what was in The Jury Act, or something like that. MR. W ALDING: The next question is why was it added in? MR. TALLIN: Probably to make it consistent with The Jury Act, which I think it where we got it from. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, again, on

Section 11 ( 1)(d), it means in effect that a person is barred for life from participating in elections, and I consider that unduly harsh. We do have an amendment in our list, on the top of Page 3, 11 (1) (d), which would in effect limit the period of prohibition to five years and in the case of 11 (1) (e), would strike it out entirely. So I am saying to the Attorney-General, is it his intention to bar for lif e someb ody who has 231

Friday, 25 July, 1980 committed an offence, for life, so that they could not even be a poll clerk in an election, because that is what he is doing in effect. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it is our position now that we will continue the existing provision, which is just the same, but will undertake to examine other Election Acts throughout the country and try to determine what sort of consensus there is across the country on this issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 8 pass; Page 9 pass Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, a couple of recom mendations here, I guess the suggestion being that it takes a considerable period of time to train and develop returning officers and so I think the amend ment here essentially would allo w the re turning officers to be appointed on a continuing basis. MR. MERCIER: lt is not accep table, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 9 pass - Mr. Doern, did you have another amendment on Page 9? MR. DOERN: Well, they are related. MR. MERCIER: lt is the same position. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 9 pass; Page 10 pass; Page 11 - Mr. Anderson. MR.

ANDERSON: I would move THAT Subsection 21(1 ) of Bill 95 be struck out and the following su bsect ion su bstitute d therefor: Appointment of DROs. 21

(1) The returning officer of an electoral division shall appoint a voter in the electoral division as a deputy re turning officer for (

a) each polling su bdivision in the electoral division; (

b) each special poll provided under

Section 62 in a hospital in the electoral division; (

c) each moving poll es tablis hed in the electoral division under

Section 63 or 64; and (

d) each advanc e poll establis hed in the electoral division. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it is just to ensure that there are DROs appointed for (b), (

c) and (d). MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 11 as amended pass. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I move: THAT subsection 22(1) of Bill 95 be struck out and the following subsection be substituted therefor: Appointment of Poll Clerks. 22(1) To assist the Deputy Returning Officers in admini stering polls. The Returning Officer of an electoral division shall appoint a voter in the electoral division as a poll clerk for (

a) Each polling subdivision in the electoral division, (

b) Each special poll provided under

Section 62 in a hospital in the electoral division, (

c) Each moving poll establishe d in the electoral division under

Section 63 or 64, (

d) Each advance poll esta bli shed in the electoral division. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 11 as amended pass; Pag, 12. Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: I just might indicate, Mr. Chairmar that amendment to su bsection 24(2) is accep table. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we need the motion read int the record? Maybe we should. MR. DOERN: lt might be just as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I realize we were dealin with three motions at that time. We're dealing wit one now. MR. US KI W: lt's one of th e ones tha t wer accepted before. We didn't read them in. MR. MERCIER: They were deemed to have bee read, I think.

Perhaps we could proceed on the sam basis, that they're deemed to have been read. MR. USKIW: 1t doesn't matter to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Page 12. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, also ther e is suggestion made in 25( 1) that there might be practical problem and that the apparent solution, E proposed by Mr. Anstett when he spoke, was thl the Tuesday, because of advance polls and thre Saturdays and so on and so on, the selection of Tuesday apparently would work better than ar other day. lt might be an idea to have a fixed votin day and then to work from it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, recognize all tt advantages in that proposal and the comments mac by Mr . Anstett but it is our preference that we n1 make tha t amendme nt; tha t we maintain sorr discretion in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 12 as amended pass; Pa� 13 . Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just a correctio I'd like to move THAT Clause 27(1) (

e) of Bill 95 be amended by striking out the word "advanced" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the word "advance". MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 13 as amended pass. Pa( 14 pass. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move 232 THAT subsection 28(2) of the Act be amended by striking out the words "day on which the

Friday, 25 July, 1980 poll other than an advance poll will be held in the election" in the last two lines thereof and substituting therefor the words "polling day at the elec tions". I. CHAIRMAN: Page 14 as amended pass. Page pass. Mr. Doern. t. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, just one point there I 1k, if I could, on Page 14 there, there's talk about >lishing obli gations by the Returning Officer and blishing by the Ch ief Ele ctoral Officer. This >ears to be a duplication and unnecessary cost I expenditure under 27(3) and 28( 1) , you're asking l officials to publ ish the same information.

I 1der whether that isn't, in effect, a waste of time I money. . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. . MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there's no specific �ndment on that item, but I think a good point ( have very well been raised on that and we'll mine that one further. . DOERN: So you will consider that? . MERCIER: Yes. . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. Page 15. . DOERN: Mr. Chairman, the amend ment posed under 32 is th at it would provi de •rma tion as to the location of the residents. >arentl y this would now be a req uir ement, �rwise you may have trouble locating somebody. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the difficulty with :, as I understand it, is that the mere legal �ription of the residents may very well pose a culty in mailing a notice and notices are required >e mailed under The Act and may involve some >lems there. So we prefer at this time not to !e to that amendment. DOERN: I'm not sure I'm followin g the >rney-Gener al. How would he conv ey the ·mation under his system?

MERCIER: We would hope that we would have ailing address but the requirement just for a legal :ription, as I understand the mailing procedure, n that's done it's quite likely and it's very difficult letters addressed in that fashion are received by 1opeful recipient of the letter. CHAIRMAN: Page 15 . Mr. Walding. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what rs or other documents would be mailed to a r by the DRO during an election campaign? MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, under Revisions and �als to, I think, rem ove names from the voters' fhere are two examples. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 15 pass; Page 16 pass. Mr. Doern. MR.

DOERN: On Page 16 , 38 requir es a callback, that's the net effect of that rec ommendation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat your question, Mr. Doern? I don't think the Mi nister heard you. MR. DOERN: I'm saying that the net effect is that this does, in fact, require a callback on the part of the enumerator.

Section 38 as it now stands allows telephone information as opposed to a physical callback and it would appear to be a more accurate method of obtaining information. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is tha t what is in 38 was a proced ur e that was reco mmended by the review that was done by the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr. Anstett is indicating no. That was my information, that this procedure was also used in the last by-elect ions. I think there was a pretty high turnout in those by-elections. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, apparently in the last by-elections and in the general elec tion, th e enu merators were re qu ired to go back. So the precedent is there . MR. WALDING: Mr. Chai rman , can I ask th e Attorney-General, in the 30(8) that's in the bill, is it the intent of the wording or is this the intent of the gov ernment tha t a voter who's left off the list can phone the enu merator and be added to the list by a phone call? lt really doesn't say that in here. lt just says "contact the enumerator". it's not clear what the enu merator does on rec eiving the call. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, as I understand it he could do either. He could accept it probably over the telephone or go back and take the information and esse ntially, there's really not much di fference between what is proposed in the amendment and what is in the existing 30(8) as we propose it. In any event, the enumerator's requ ired to leave information that enables the voter to contact the enu merator and there doesn't really appear to me to be too much dif ference between the two provisions. MR.

WALDING: As I understand the amendment before us, it's somewhat rest rictiv e because it requires an action on the part of the enumerator, almost a setting up of an appointment to go back and see that particular voter to take down the details. The explanation the Mi nister gives us, that there is apparently an option on the part of the enu merator that he or she can take that information over the phone and save a trip and have it done quickly. Perhaps we should clarify this section, as to what is intended or that there is a choice or it may be done both ways. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, let me first of all read from the review. lt indicated that the callback cards recommended in the previous paragraph would be left to dwelling units whereafter at least two visits, one during the daytime and one in the ev ening, the enu merator had been unable to secure all of the 233

Friday, 25 July, 1980 information necessary. The callback card would be essentially a notice of inability to obtain information. We just indicate in this

section that the enum erator should go back at least twice, once during the daylight hours, once in the ev ening, leave a card indicating he has called to get the information, and at some point in time the elector has to take unto himself some responsi bility and he has to do it either under

Section 30(8) or under the amendment. In either case, he has to phone the enu merator. The enum erator then, under our proposal, could take the information over the phone from the voter or go back to the residence and take the information there. MR. WAIDING: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can ask Mr . Doern, is it his in tention to prevent the enume rator from recei ving the informatinon on the phone and require the enu merator to go back to the voter? MR. DOERN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This follows the Ontario Act which requir es the physical meeting and the physical callback where there's a problem, as opposed to taking it on the phone, etc. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, can I then ask Mr. Doern what problem he sees with an enu merator taking the information over the phone? MR. DOERN: I guess the problem is, you don't know who's on the other end of the line. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDER SON: Mr. Chairman, it's my understan di ng tha t a su bs tantial amount of enumerating in rural areas is done by virtually that method , perhaps with no initia l do or-to-d oor contacts at aiL MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: I think that answers the proposal, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that there's really not that much dif ference between what is here and what is being suggested and tha t we . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 16 pass; Page 17 . Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I move THAT Clause 32( 1 )(

c) of Bill 95 be amended by str iking out the words "the day fixed for polling therein" and substituting therefor the words "polling day". Now you can interrupt. MR. DOERN: I'm sorry. On Page 16 , 31(

b) and (

c) there's an amendment we have there which would allow voluntary patients, people who put thems elves into a mental institution or other institution on their own authority, to have the right to vote and that would seem to be a reasonable proposal, namely, this is not someone who's committed but someone for whatever reasons feel tha t they need some treatment and goes in on their own recognizance. I think that this is a prog ressive measure which I would recommend to the committee. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as I understand i from the Legislative Council, the definition that i: proposed is similar to the federal definition, whicl I'm advised has been drafted to attempt to mee var ying

definitions across the country of menta health and mental di sease. While we in Manitob; have these two provisions which are specific unde our exist ing legislation, I have to admit it's : troublesome area and it's one that I think - W4 almost have to rely on the good sense of people an< participants in the electoral process, because I thinl as we're all aware there are people living at home, i1 many cases they can be mentally retarded, etc., a var ying degr ees under which adults have bee1 appointed comm ittees or guardians, and there's n4 rest riction under the Act against tho se people Iron voti ng.

I think every body involved in electoral process ha: run across th ose situations and they are ver difficult. it almost becomes a matter of moralit among political candida tes or workers who - and won't comment on the lack of it or existence of it - but it's a very difficult problem. But we can't accep thi s definition right now because we feel it's to4 broad. it's designed for Canada as a whole. We hav• some specific

definitions here in Manitoba unde exist ing legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 17 . Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out tha it's my understan ding that people in this categor} namely, voluntary patients in hospitals, can and d• have the right to vote federally,

whereas they do no have this privilege provincially and the amendment i designed to allow people to have the same votin! privilege provincially that they do have federally. So would th erefore, move this amendment at this time. MR. CH AIRMAN: All th ose in favour of th, amendment? Mr. Doern's amendment, 31 (

b) and (c: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I understand it's also , rec ommenda tion of the provincial Department c Health. A COUNTED VOTE was taken the result being a follows: Yeas, 4. Nays, 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion defeated. M1 Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, before we leave th page and this sec tion, can I ask the Attorney-GeneH why judg es of the Appeal Court, etc., in (

a) are ne allowed to vote, other than the fact that it's been i the Act for some time? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: I don't know whether Mr. Uskiw pL that in after he had an experience with recounts. MR. WALDING: I think not, Mr. Chairman. I believ it's been in the Act perhaps since the last century. 234

Friday, 25 July, 1980 R. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it's because, as I )Uid think, that the holding of a judicial position ould require that they certainly not only be non trtisan but appear to be non-partisan for one of the try reasons Mr. Uskiw cited , because of the 'ncern I think he expressed and I think that's the eory behind it. �-WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I can understand the 'n-partisan argument when it comes to taking part an election campaign or being an active and blic member of the party, but when it comes to � actual marking of an X on a piece of paper inside voting booth, I really don't see that that is a rtisan activity, partisan in the sense that it's an mtified party. lt's a political procedure because it's trt of politics but whether it is partisan in mtifiable partisan manner, that I would question. �-MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I would think every �caution should be taken to ensure that judges are t only non-partisan but appear to be non-partisan. t in my experience in di scussing this issue with my of them is that they cer tainly are not int erested any manner whatsoever in having the right to vote d, if they were given it, would not vote anyway. �. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. t USKIW: Yes. Is that not in contradiction to nstitutional righ ts in Canada? I th ought that �stitutionally everyone had a right to participate in ! democratic process. Is there an exclusion in nadian law? I. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. I.

TALLIN: As far as I am aware, the right to vote not a constitutional right. lt's a right that's given each Legislature or Parliament with respect to � Election Act that they pass. I. USKIW: I see. I. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ande rson read the endment on Page 17 . I. WALDING: Can we have an explanation of t, Mr. Chairman? The words seem to be almost same. :. MERCIER: Which one was that? :. CHAIRMAN: Page 17 . •· MERCIER: 28(2)? . CHAIRMAN: 32(1 )(c). :. ANDERSON: Oh. We have a definition of ling day and we just try to use it as much as ;sible so people don't think we're referring to ne other day. That's all. .

CHAIRMAN: Page 17 as amended pass. Mr. �rn . . DOERN: Mr. Chairman, there's a couple of 1ts there. On 33(2) we have an amendment which, in effect, would allow lists to include people who were sworn in and then those names would be inc orporated in the following or successive elections, so that this is the intent of this amendment. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the advice I'm receiving from Legislative Counsel is that's probably contained in

Section 51. MR. DOERN: 51? MR. MERCIER: 51. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get a little fuller explanation from Mr. Doern when he introduc es these. I'm sure he's familiar with them but some of us haven 't seen these before and in attem pting to read the se ction and read the amendment as well it's a little confusing and takes a bit of time. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to look at 51 after. The basic idea here is that a person who is sworn in will then be added to the list and that list of additional persons who were sworn in can then be added to the successive elec tion. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, we think it's covered in

Section 51, if you're satisfied. MR. DOERN: Is the Attorney-General saying, in effect, that under 51 people who are sworn in are then added to the list in the successive election, because I don't see it there? MR. MERCIER: "sub ject to further correction is herein provi ded". Does that not cover it? MR. DOERN: I think the question here under 51 is, are people who are sworn in at advance polls covered in 51? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps when we get to

Section 51 we could, in the last line, add "sub ject to fur ther correct ion or additions as herein provided ". Would that cover it? MR. DOERN: I think we'll look at that again at 51 then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 17. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, on 17 I wanted to ask the Attorney-General about 33( 1), the use of old lists. Mu nicipal gov ernment s, on occasion, will use provincial or federal lists if, because of some time contraint or just perhaps to save money, they can avoid an enumeration and use our lists or the federal lists.

So I think the question is, in the event of a snap election which is close to a municipal election or a federal elec tion, would it not be useful to allow the provincial authority to access fresh mun icipal or federal lists as a convenience or as a saving? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, my note on this one is that the review that was done by Mr. Reeves 235

Friday, 25 July, 1980 recommended this change. I'm just trying to find it in the report that was made. MR. DOERN: Recommended the change that I am sugges ting? MR. MERCIER: Recommended that we change from the two years to the one year. MR. DOERN: No, but our point is dif ferent, Mr. Chairman, namely, that if there was a snap election called and it was close to a municipal or a federal election, why wouldn't it be a good idea to use those fresh lists? The municipal people now access the lists of provincial or federal people, why cou ldn't we access theirs? MR. MERCIER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

I was looking at another 33(1). it's your amendment, 33(3) you're talking about. There will be a di fference in the list of voters under The Canada Elect ions Act because we will be recog nizing British subjects, which they do not do. Under the proposed amendment which will be dealt with tomorrow in Law Amendments Comm ittee, we will be recog nizing British su bjects in The Local Authorities Election Act in the same way as the provincial Act, if that is indeed approved. We could adopt this

section but strike out the part "under The Canada Elections Act". MR. CHAIRMAN: 17? Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: I'm suggesting that this proposed amendment of 33(3), I believe, that we change 12 months to "one year" because that's the term we've been using, it's just to be consistent, because in subsection (1) you're using "one year", so why not? Then if we delete it, "The Canada Elections Act, Canada" in the fourth line and the word "or" we would be then prepared to accept that amendment. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I'm simply adding a cost-saving ti me-saving measure and although there is that di fference, I suppose the British su bjects could be broken out and added. So I'm simpl y saying, I think it's a useful suggestion. it's up to the Attorney-General whether he wants to accept it or not. MR. MERCIER: We're prepared to accept it on that basis, Mr. Chairman, the amendment of 12 months to "one year" in the first line and in the fourth line to delete "The Canada Elections Acts, Canada or". Does Mr. Doern wish to ... ? Then it's consistent with our Act. If Mr.

Doern wishes to move that we'll accept it in that form. MR. DOERN: I'm now getting confused then to which

section should be moved. Are you talking about the amendment to 33( 1) or moving our proposal which is 33(3)? MR. MERCIER: 33(3) with the changes that I've made. MR. DOERN: Okay. Could you repeat your change then and I'll move it? MR. MERCIER: In the first line just substitute "om year" for "12 months" to be consistent wit I subsection (1); and then in the fourth line delete thl words, "The Canada Elections Act, Canada or". MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I think that would bl an im provement.

I simply ask the Mini ster again if hl could comment on why the federal lists couldn't bl used with the change of the British subjects, tha they could be revised from or revised out, at a Cour of Revision. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, we think a fairl· sign ificant group of voters are affected by the feder� voter qualifications. We therefore prefer to proceec in this manner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Just one final question, Mr. Chairman I just wondered if the Attorney-General has an numb ers in regard to how many British subj ect there are in Manitoba who are not Canadian citizens MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Mercier. MR. MERCIER: I don't have those up to dat figures, Mr . Chairman, but perhaps we coul, undertake to - I think Mr. Walding asked that th other day - we should look into that. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, then I'll move tha revised amendment 33(3): WH ERE within one year before the date of a election in electoral division, a list of electors or a li� of voters has been prepared, under The Loc!

Authorities Election Act by an enumeration, within a or part of a polling subd ivision in the electon division, the enume rator for the polling subdivisio may use the information obtained in preparing th� list of electors or list of voters or di sclosed on th� list of electors, or list of voters, for the purpose c preparing a v oters list for the election in the electon division. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 17 as amended pass. M Walding. MR. WALDING: I wanted to question the principl behind this, where it's suggested that it's possible t use at an election time a list of voters that is 1 months old.

Bearing in mind that an estimated 2 percent of the whole population moves within a yea it could well have an election list where only 8 percent of the eligible people were on the voters li! to start with. I recall the problems that arose at the feder< election this year because of the use of an old list - and I don't think it was that old, it was somethin like 9 months, I belie ve, even less than a year - an there were tremendous problems involved and great deal of work placed on DROs in trying t contact people.

I suspect that a significant number < potential voters were, in fact, deprived of their rigl to vote because they couldn't even be sworn in a voting day in the cities, as they can in the run areas. I understand that this is one of the argumenl that is put forward against a permanent voters lis that such a list is either continuously updated < 236

Friday, 25 July, 1980 pdated annually and there always becomes the roblem of people losing their right to vote. I understand that British Columbia is the only rovince that tries to work such a system and they stim ate that only 75 percent of the eligible people et onto the voters list and are entitled to vote as pposed to figur es of somet hing like 92 to 95 ercent in those provinces where they hold an �ume ration at the time of each election. So I have that serious reservation about the use of Id lists in 33 and I wonder if it has to be used, why o we leave it at one year?

Would it not make it a tie fairer for people to reduce it, it was suggested x months? If the Mini ster wants to leave it in there, :m I suggest a shorter period than the "one year"? IR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very uch the concerns expressed by Mr. Walding, but 1is is not mandatory, this is di scre tionary - may >e the information for the purpo se · of preparing a ;t - and I think in view of the experience in the st federal elec tion, there would be a gr eat deal of 1luctance to rely very heavily on it. But there's scretion in this sect ion, I think, that I appreciate the ·gument he's using. R.

CHAIRMAN: Page 17 as amended pass; Page l pass. Mr. Doern. R. DOERN: Page 18 , I think the purpo se of the nendments that we're proposing would, in effect , 'vert to the 19 77 elect ion. These amendm ents >parently were practical and workable at that time 1d ther efore are re commended. In particular, under · well, I guess that's all I have to say at this point. R. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the oblem that was referred to.

The difficulty is, I don't 1ow whether we're making it any better by tbstitut ing the words, "a temporary period ". lt •/Oives a judgment call on the part of someone and 1ht at the moment I think we have to be very . reful here and continue to examine these rules, but n not sure that this is much of a better solution. R. CHAIRMAN: Page 18 pass. Mr. Walding. R. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask Mr. Doern 1at the intent of the amendment is here. I don't low it just reading it through quickly. R.

DOERN: The general intent of th ese 1endments is to try to clarify or ask the person to uif y their intention of leaving the province nporarily, whether they do intend to return or tether they're simply leaving for a period of time, work or whatever. �. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I don't follow how yone can be asked if he intends to return, if he's t here when he's not enumerated. t CHAIRMAN: Page 18 pass. Mr. Walding. t WALDING: Mr. Chairman, let's not rush things. l don't want to do things by confrontation. We're apared to attempt to co-operate and seek a ncensus as much as possible.

If you'd just slow wn a little bit until we're all satisfied, hopefully we can come up with a much better Act that we're all satisfied with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good, Mr. Walding. Mr. Tallin. MR. TALLIN: Are you talking about a person who's not here at the time of the enumeration? He's gone to Alberta for three months? They get enu merated because other people in the household will say, my son should be on the list too, he just happens to be in Calgary for this three months because he's there on a special job for his firm, or something like that. Is that what you were talking about, tha t kind of a person? MR.

WALDING: Well, I was qu es tioning th e statement that Mr. Doern made about somebody who was out of the province, and whether or not he intended to come back. He said that that was . . . MR. TALLIN: Those people who now get on the list. They get on the list either under the six-month provision as they are now, if they think the time is less than six months as in the bill, or under the indefinite provision, the temporary period, they could get on that too. The question, I think, that has to be answered is, is a specific period six months of more value to the enumerator than a temporary period?

That's what has to be answered here. MR. WALDING: I take it that Rule 2 has to do with someone who has been away for more than six months. MR. TALLIN: Yes. As I read it, if they've been away for more than six months, then they're off the list if they're still away. MR. WALDING: Would it serve Mr. Doern's purpose to make the six months some longer time, eight months or nine months, or it would cover a school year? I understand that's perhaps the concern here . MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the only reason the six months was picked was that it was consistent with the six-month residency requirement for voting. lt doesn't necessarily have to be consistent with that figure. To use a fixed figure gives the enu merator some definite guideline in att empting to do their job and, as I understand it, these rules of residence are a problem in every ju risdiction. Now there's no particular magic in the figure "six months". MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I guess there's a couple of points here.

One is a person who, say, leaves the province for a period of seven months with the intention of returning, even with their entire household, they would be excluded. I guess another problem is with students who might take their education in univ ersity terms of four months. MR. MERCIER: The problem is I guess, Mr. Chairman, or one of the problems is, it works both ways. lt works the same way in Rule 4, the other way for someone coming to the province. Students are attempted to be covered in Rule 7. 237

Friday, 25 July, 1980 MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, it might be useful for the Attorney-General to just take another look at that

section and then report to the commit tee and report in the House on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 18 pass; Page 19 pass; Page 20 pass; Page 21 pass; Page 22 pass. MR. MERCIER: There's 37(2) on Page 20. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 20. The Mem ber for Elmw ood. MR. DOERN: I was looking for Page 23, but there is one item on 20 that I would like to revert to, if I could. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 20. The Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: On 37(2) . . . MR. MERCIER: That's agreeable. MR. DOERN: Okay, that's agreeable, fine. Do you want me to read that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 20 pass; Page 21 pass; Page 22 pass; Page 23 pass.

The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything written here, but there is a problem, I think, with the notion of somebody appearing in 43, somebody coming on the basis of blood or mar ria ge as opposed to an individual swearing on their own word or oath. One of the problems, I believe, is how do you establish a relationship by blood or marriage?

I suppose if this person has the same name and the same address, it's a simple matter, but how about a cousin Enns, or somebody like that, somebody who may have a di fferent name, who might be a cousin or an uncle or an aunt, it could be cousin Keith, as you said, or brother Harry, and that's the problem. lt seems like a reasonable proposal but I say that, in terms of demonstrating it, it could be extremely difficult. lt might simply be better to have the person ultima tely swear on their own at a later point in time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourble Mini ster. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, this provision was taken dir ectly from Ontario with the exception of the LCUs employer as well as a relative of the person, by blood or marriage. I would think there would be some .concern generally to anybody coming along to do this because there's a natural tendency among political workers to attempt to do this as much as possible. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, apparently in Ontario, vouching is only allowed in rural areas but is not allowed in urban areas. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this isn't vouch ing, this is appearing before the revising officer. MR.

DOERN: To appear there to vouch that so and so is a relative and should be added to the list. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I point out that this is a new provision and is an exception to the general rule that a person has to apply in person to have his name added to the list and, while it may be limi ted, i1 is a further method of a person getting his name on the voting list. I tend to think that perhaps it's small "c" cons ervative to restrict it to a relative of the person by blood or marriage but it's an area in which there probably should be some lim itation and we probably should proceed with some caution. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Page 23 pass; Page 24 pass; Page 25 pass; Page 26 pass; Page 27 pass; Page 28 pass; Page 29. The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: 29, Mr. Chairman, the re's a pro posed amend ment by Mr. Doern. We were prepared to add in there in the last line after "correc tions", "or subject to further correct ions or additions is herein provided" or "further correction and additions". MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 29 pass. The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: The question there is, would tha1 cover the advance poll? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, Legislative Counsel advise me that that would. Does Mr.

Doern wish to make tha t motion to add tho se words, "and additio ns" in the last line after the word "correc tion ". MR. DOERN: I would so move: THAT

Section 51 be amended to read at the end, "sub ject to further correct ions and additions". MR. CHAIRMAN: 51 as amended pass; 52, the Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman,

Section 52, I think the amendment here is to be consistent with earlier provisions in the bill so that there would be a six month minimum as opposed to a one-year minimum residency. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr . Chairman, isn't the principle involved here that if someone is entitled to vote they ought to be entitled to vote for themselv es, which should cover the whole principle of qualification of candidate? In other words, if you qualify as a voter under a previous

section that we passed, then you should be able to stand for election and it's recognized in the amendment where it puts six months for both. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to check some thing here. Mr. Chairman, Clause 52(

c) is the existing provision, "qualification for a candidate". What I'd be prepared to do is go some way towards satisfying the concerns of Mr. Doern. I'd be prepared to accept his amendment if we substit uted "one year" for "six months" so that he's resided in Manitoba for at least one year prior to polling day at the election, rather than one year prec eding the day 238

Friday, 25 July, 1980 in wh ich the writ for the elect ion is issued. In essence, it shortens the period of qualification by 35 days. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to go much further in fact. I wanted also to amend the second portion about the date being on the polling day but I wanted it to read "six months" from that point in time. The Attorney-General is, I guess, going from a period of 12 months down to 10 months and 3 weeks and I wanted to go from the present - which I guess is a year and five weeks - down to six months period. So I'm simply encouraging to go a little further down the road.

I think clearly, whatever we agree to should be from the day of polling, as opposed to when the writs are issued, that's not the key sect ion. But I belie ve that if the Attorney-General looks back, with his aides, that he will see that six months is the figure talked about earlier so you're going to have a di screpancy here of 12 months in one

section and six months in some others. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, we would be prepared to move the amendment, "he has resided in Manitoba for at least one year prior to polling day at the elec tion". lt doesn't go as far, I know, as Mr. Doern would like to go but it's as far as we are prepared to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, the Attorney-General has said that this is the same wording that's in the present Act and I would suggest to him that in the present Act it also says under Qualifications for Voters Lists, "has resided in Manitoba for one year" and he's changing one of those but he's not changing the other one and surely that's inco nsistency and would result in a person being able to vote for anybody else, but not for hims elf. lt really doesn't make much sense. Can I suggest that they ought to be consis tent, either both at six months or both at a year and I really don't mind which way it goes.

Unle ss you want to compromise at nine months. MR. MERCIER: Well, we're close to nine months, Mr. Chairman, we've knocked off 70 days. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 29 as amended. Mr . Walding. MR. WALDING: I think the Attorney-General is still being advised on the matter. Does he not see an incons istency? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, That's right, they're not consistent but they're different, one is a voter and one is a candidate and I think perhaps a little more is expected in terms of permanency from a candid ate.

I don't think it's a problem anyway because I'm not frankly aware of any candidates, in previous elections, who haven 't re sided in the provi nce for qui te a long period of time. I think we would be talking hypothetically and theoretically because I'm certainly not aware of any situation like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Attorney General gave it some thought, that he probably wou ld come around to the conclusion that if a person is eligible to vote he should be eligible to run for office or vice versa.

So why don't we agree to hold this and let him have some time to think about that? I'm sure that we're just rushing things and that's part of our problem. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we make the one amendment to make it "one year prior to polling day at the election" , because I think as Mr. Doern sugg ested , that should be the date that we should be using in as many cases as we can, prior to polling day. MR. WALDING: And consistant with 32( 1 ), has the same wording as used there. MR. MERCIER: Right. Yes. MR.

WALDING: If you're willing to go that far why aren't you willing to go the other little bit and make the time limits . . . ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT

section 52(

c) be amended to read in the second line "polling date" . . . MR. USKIW: Use this wording and put in "one year". MR. ANDERSON: I move that the clause under di scussion be amended to re ad: (

c) he has resided in Manitoba for at least one year prior to polling date at the election. MR; CHAIRMAN: Page 29 as amended pass; Page 30 pass; Page 31. Amendment of Page 31. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT Page 31 of Bill 95 be amended by striking out the figur es "53(4)" in the second line on the page and substituting therefor the figures "53(5)". MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 31 as amended pass; Page 32 pass. Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, there's an amendment there and there just appears to be some duplication in regard to (

c) and (e). The two sections (

c) and (

e) are essen tially the same and by adopting the amendment it would appear to avoid duplication and make matter s easier for the Re turning Officer; 58( 1)(

c) and (e). MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this is a motion on the bottom of Page 6, I take it, to elimina te in

Section 58( 1)(

c) the word "occupations" and add to the same paragraph "and the names and addresses of their official agents ". Well, with respect

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-pe27
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf pe27.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bc4d3bfbe73145fc7db78e24b2e09cb9a3c19412

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