VOL

TIME – 8 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley)

ATTENDANCE –11 QUORUM – 6

Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Chomiak, Swan

Mr. Altemeyer, Mrs. Driedger, Mr. Goertzen, Ms. Howard, Mr. Jha, Ms. Marcelino, Messrs. Pedersen, Reid, Mrs. Taillieu

APPEARING:

Mr. Stuart Briese, MLA for Ste. Rose

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson, MLA for River East

Mr. Hugh McFadyen, MLA for Fort Whyte

Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield

Mr. Rick Borotsik, MLA for Brandon West

Mr. Cliff Cullen, MLA for Turtle Mountain

WITNESSES:

Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act

Mr. Rudy Derksen, Private Citizen

Mr. George Fraser, Canadian Society of Association Executives

Ms. Sheila Michalski, Private Citizen

Mr. David Enns, Private Citizen

Mr. Doug Hutchings, Private Citizen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act

Mr. Mark Tisdale, Private Citizen

Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns, Manitoba Wildlands

Ms. Sandra Johnston, Private Citizen

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 14–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act

Bill 26–The Legal Profession Amendment Act

Bill 35–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008

Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act

Bill 39–The Court of Appeal Amendment Act

Bill 40–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, everyone. Will the Standing Committee on Justice please come to order.

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

At our previous meeting this morning, Mr. Goertzen moved the following motion: That this committee recommend to the House that it waive rule 92(7) for these committee meetings to allow members of the public to register to present to the committee.

The motion was ruled in order, and, at the time of adjournment, Mr. Pedersen had the floor.

* (20:10)

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): This resolution, to allow more presenters for Bill 37.

It certainly was good of the government members to allow us to go and visit with Prince Edward, although I wasn't able to be in line for him to speak. It's a little different when you're dealing with royalty than dealing with other members in the Leg, so we'll take that as it may.

What we're after is a resolution to allow more presenters for Bill 37. I call it an omnibus bill; I find that very ironic because, when you talk about omnibus bills, we think of the U.S. Senate and Congress–[interjection]–ominous?–[interjection]–oh, it's an ominous bill.

For the government members to be bringing in a George-Bush-type bill is really incredible, but, maybe, the junior Republicans can learn something from this. We'll see anyway.

There are a lot of parts to this bill and, of course, when the bill was introduced at the very last moment in the Leg, in order to be in this session–strange how the press release went out, promoting a set elections date. We won't call it fixed, even though it is fixed elections.

I guess it was a coincidence that the media was led down the path to announce set election dates and, yet, there was a bit of information missing in this press release which, when we finally got the bill in our hands, obviously, we realized that there was a lot more to this than just set election dates.

We're off to a good start on this, and we've had a large number of presenters coming to Bill 37. We would certainly like to hear more from the public.

I was home on the weekend, attending a couple of functions and certainly heard from a lot of my constituents who were not at all impressed by the set-up for committee. They were not able to make it in in the morning; they're finding it difficult to get in to be here, to be able to present. It would certainly be nice if this committee would give leave to extend the hearings, and it would be even better if they would actually take this out across the province for hearings.

Not everybody is able to drop everything to come. I've talked to a number of people who would like to come and, being busy in the agricultural field these days, they're just not able to drop. I had one person who wanted to come tonight, but he is out in the field seeding. So, obviously, he has to pick his livelihood first before he drops everything to come in to give a presentation to the bills.

We know there are more presenters out there. The government has accused us of stalling, but, as they accuse us of stalling, they haven't even called Bill 17 yet, which–at last count this afternoon–what I understand, there are 410 presenters for that. If they can't handle however many we had at this, how do they expect to get all those presenters through on Bill 17? Maybe, they won't–I guess they could always use closure, if they really want to get the bill through.

We have a very rushed timetable. They could have presented this bill and Bill 17 back at the beginning of the session, but, apparently, they didn't want to hear from the public. So they've rushed the timetable on this. We won't even go near the closed–well, there's all summer. It's okay. We won't even go near the closed door sign for the general public, so we'll leave that one alone.

It was interesting this morning as the government members actually gave leave–actually it was one of the government members who suggested a 25-minute recess, if I can call it that, to go out and visit with Prince Edward out on the south lawn.

As I was making my way down the hallway, there was an elderly lady that I ran into, a very sprightly elderly lady. She was pretty upset. She said she used to work for Premier Schreyer, and that's a good number of years ago. Yet she came in there today–she came in the Legislature today and she said she has been treated so badly by people in the Legislature, staff in the Legislature, and I don't take that as government staff. I mean, I take that as government staff, not as security. It wasn't security that was treating her badly, and she was–actually, her last comment to me as I helped her out the south door, her last comment was, it's too bad they're not all nice like you are.

So, you know–[interjection] Hey, I'm a schmoozer with the elderly. What can I say? It was okay. But, certainly, it reflects back on the government of how ordinary Manitobans, if I can call them that, view this government.

In terms of presenters to this bill, we've had a large variety of presenters, university students, and some of them have actually come out in support of this bill, very few of them, but it's been the odd one. We've had people from the Green Party, from the Communist Party and, of course, one of their–the Green Party and the Communist Party are very interested in the vote tax that's on this. They see this as a way of financing their party, and, well, I guess if they have to depend on taxpayers to fund their parties, then I guess that's why they like that part of this particular legislation. The students' union, if I remember correctly when I was listening to his presentation, he was–he and a number of others have had some wide-ranging opinions as to when the actual election date would be. I think we could probably have meaningful debate, although some would call it filibustering, in terms of when the best date would be for the election, whether it's spring or fall, or winter, or spring or whatever. Lots of people have different–and all the more reason why we should get it out and hear from more people because the more people we hear from, maybe the better idea where we should be. I always thought that that's why we're in here was to listen to Manitobans and not decide for them.

So it's a–

An Honourable Member: He's a Manitoban.

Mr. Pedersen: I'm a Manitoban. I have a right to speak, too, so there's no problem here. I've always been a Manitoban, and I've always been a proud Manitoban. I only have one son that's working out-of-province. I'm much luckier than many families who have all their family who's moved to Alberta for jobs. So I'm doing not bad on that part. I tell them there will be hope to move back to Manitoba, but not for another three years or so. So we'll be okay there.

This bill, Bill 37, even comes as a surprise to many of the backbench NDP MLAs. No wonder that Manitobans as a whole have not heard about this when even the government members themselves are not involved in the process. It seems unfortunate that they have to learn at the same time as we do, and I certainly haven't heard any of them coming out and speaking in favour of this bill. They seem to be strangely very quiet. I guess, maybe they haven't been–[interjection] No. I'll go for the end.

So what we need to have is for this committee to give leave so that this bill can be heard, taken throughout Manitoba and we can hear from more Manitobans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

* (20:20)

Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): I'd like to take the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record on the motion to allow the public to continue to register to make presentations to Bill 37.

I think it is important that probably it would be useful to be able to register to make presentations as long as the bill actually is before committee. I know there are some rules that are in place on that, but I think it would be useful to adjust those rules so that more of the public could get in and speak to Bill 37. It seems pretty clear to me that the government themselves don't think this bill is all that terribly important or they wouldn't have left it until the last possible moment to bring it forward. They had opportunity to have it out there far earlier in the session. They didn't consult with the public before they brought it forward. We heard that over and over again from presenters here on this bill, and I think it does need to probably be stopped in its tracks right now and taken out and have some public committee hearings across the province and actually get some input into it.

By trying to block us from having some input into it, they also block the public. I think that these hearings–I know we're having some time changes on the hearings and so on, and I think these hearings should be in the evening when people do have an opportunity to get out. But I also think that you shouldn't have your name called only twice on these. As long as the bill is before committee I think it would be appropriate to, once you hit the end of the committee hearings on that particular bill, then you could strike the names, but the names should be left there until such time as the committee hearing on that bill is over.

It certainly appears that the government is trying to rush some of this legislation and kind of ram it through, and there was lots of time during the sitting to put forward the legislation earlier. Instead, it seems that the agenda was to get as little feedback as possible, and even in the way this bill was presented in the House indicated that, with the press release going out saying it was set-election-date legislation. That was what they wanted the headlines to say for that day and they got their wish.

All the other things that are in the bill nobody knew about them until too late in the day for them to make it into the media or to even make comments in media scrums, and so they got the headline that said set election dates. I don't think there's hardly anyone in the province that disagrees with set election dates, and if I remember right, my predecessor, Glen Cummings, put forward a bill on set elections and maybe more than once. I wasn't around this building at the time, but I think it was him definitely promoting the set election dates in this province. So I'm quite happy to see somebody's finally taking his advice on that particular issue.

One of the issues in this bill was the vote tax, the $1.25 a person, and I think parties are quite capable of raising their own money. I don't think they need to go to the public to put a tax on each vote they get. I hear the excuse that the federal government does it, so why shouldn't we. I think the real excuse is that, out of the private sector, we raised more money the last election than they did, and their noses are out of joint over it.

Another aspect of this bill is the censorship part and, when you're in parties that philosophically don't agree on a lot of issues, for one party to censor the other is just beyond my imagination. That's what it's all about. That's what partisan politics is about. That's about taking out your message to the people and you should be able to do that without some committee of government having censorship rights over it. I think that's, at the very least, a very undemocratic approach.

Glen Cummings did make a presentation the other night here, and one of the things he said about the committee that would be looking at publications that were going out into constituencies was, and I'll quote him, that no way a vetted communication will not have a political bias to it. I think that's a very telling statement. There is no way that there wouldn't be a political twist put on, when a communication that a member of this Legislature wants to put out into their ridings was vetted.

One other thing that Glen noted when he made his presentation the other night was that, if you silence the opposition, you silence the government. I think people should really think about that very statement. What makes good government in this province is the ability of both the opposition and the government to have their say, their democratic right to go out there and say their view, their approach, what they see happening on various issues.

The last thing I'd like to mention on this is that, basically, nobody campaigned on any of the issues that are in this bill, Bill 37. We had the position of set election dates; that was about the only part of this bill that was even out there in front of the electorate at the time.

I've heard the Premier (Mr. Doer) and others say, over and over again, that they got their mandate from the election. That's where they set out their policies, the policies they were going to put forward, that they were going to follow. I saw none of the rest of this bill, outside of the part that we were proposing, out in front of the public.

I believe this bill should, at the very least, be held back and taken to more widespread public hearings across the province, or very large portions of this bill should be cut out of it. It's, basically, five bills rolled into one. That's a little bit of overkill, and it makes it very hard to accept any of it.

With those few words, I'll close on that, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Committee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is the motion moved by Mr. Goertzen as follows: I move that this committee recommend to the House that it waive rule 92(7) for these committee meetings to allow members of the public to register to present to the committee.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.

Point of Order

An Honourable Member: A point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen.

Mr. Goertzen: Just for the record, the New Democratic members voted against hearing more public members.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chairperson, on the same point of order, we voted to have the public that are here and that have waited many nights get their voices heard when they're here.

Mr. Chairperson: There's no point of order.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: We'll now take care of a few housekeeping items, if the members of the committee will bear with me for a few moments.

As was announced in the House, this committee will also meet in this room to consider these bills on the following occasions: tomorrow night, Tuesday, June 3, starting at 6 p.m.; Wednesday morning, June 4, at 10 a.m. in this committee room; and Wednesday evening, June 4, at 6 p.m.

Does the committee wish to indicate how long it wishes to sit this evening?

Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Mr. Chairperson, today, we lost three hours this morning when the committee was sitting, but no presenters were heard. We had set this evening's proceedings to start at 6, but it was postponed for two hours for the event with Prince Edward, so I would suggest that we be prepared to sit until 4 a.m. in order that we can get a reasonable amount of work done today.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been proposed that this committee sit until 4 a.m. Is the committee agreed?

Some Honourable Members: No.

* (20:30)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I think that what the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan) is suggesting goes against what it is that we have attempted to be doing over the last number of years, and even one can go back into the '90s. It almost ridicules any attempt from this government to previous governments to try to bring some normalcy to the whole committee process. There was a time in which committees would listen endlessly with no time limitations at all for a presenter, and then we would have questions and answers that would go equally endlessly. We would be sitting past midnight far too often, and members of all political parties have mocked the idea in the past of having to sit at that time.

Even though I would ultimately argue that there are directions where we've moved that has marginalized public input, in part I've accepted it because we have seen a more reasonable time frame. To suggest right at the onset that we sit till 4 o'clock in the morning, I think, is not appropriate, that it is far more reasonable to set a time, whether it's midnight–and if we're not prepared to agree to a midnight time, let's see how the committee deals with the presenters tonight and any sort of other motions that might come up. But to preclude that we have to sit till 4 o'clock in the morning, I think does a disservice to any notion of positively reforming the way in which committees operate and, I think, does ultimately a disservice to the public. How many MLAs can work in their full capacity when you start work at 7 o'clock in the morning and expect to be here till 4 o'clock the following morning? I think it would be a disgraceful way to proceed.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Chairperson, on the issue, I take some of the Member for Inkster's comments to heart, more in terms of the public and what it does to their rights. Certainly, as an individual, as an MLA, I'm prepared and I will, if the committee decides, to be here till 4 in the morning. I will be here till 4 in the morning defending the right of democracy. If the Member for Minto wants to ram this committee through 24 hours a day, at some point I'll be here 24 hours a day defending democracy, and I hope he'll be here with me, and we'll have those debates around the clock.

But what does it serve to the public? I know the Member for Minto, perhaps, isn't concerned about the public interest, isn't concerned about what individuals–you know, they reference presenters; it's more than just presenters, Mr. Chairperson. We have people who are registered here and we'll get an opportunity to hear from them shortly. But how many of those presenters are going to stay till 4 in the morning to hear what's going on at the committee? It's not just about presenters. You know, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak), who, I believe, has removed the closed sign from the door now, has, in the past, indicated, well, this is all about hearing presenters, and let's make it easy for presenters to come. It's more than that. There are plenty of Manitobans who might never feel confident coming to the mike and giving a presentation, but who might simply just want to hear the proceedings of the Legislature or the committee because it has an impact on them in one form or the other.

And what does it say to them to say, well, if you want to actually hear what's going on in this committee you have to come and sit till 4 in the morning? The vast majority of Manitobans don't dare leave their home after 10 o'clock these days with the crime rate the way it is in Winnipeg, in Manitoba. They simply don't even want to venture outside their doors, let alone come and sit here till 2 or 3 in the morning and hope whenever they leave that they're safe to do so.

So it's not an affront to me personally as a member. As I say, I'll–

An Honourable Member: You should have brought your sleeping bag.

Mr. Goertzen: I did bring my sleeping bag, and I'm prepared to use it, Mr. Chairperson. There's only room for one, though; I'll let the member know that right now. But, again, I will stay here and defend democracy, whether it's 24 hours or whether it's five hours.

But it's not my rights that you're affronting, I would say. You're doing it to the public, and, on the one hand, to espouse that you want to hear from public presenters. Do you want to hear from them at 2 in the morning, at 3 in the morning? That's symbolic, and we'll let people know that a bill that was dropped at the last possible day in the last possible hour, now they want to try to ram this thing through, through the dark of night. I'll let the minister know and I'll put him on notice. I'll be here whatever it takes to defend democracy, and we'll have a spirited debate whether it's through the night. But that doesn't mean that what he is doing is right for democracy, and that doesn't mean what he's doing is right for Manitobans. History will reflect upon this Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) and the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan) trying to ensure that few Manitobans get the opportunity to listen to the debates that are happening on this particular bill, a bill that impacts each one of them through the electoral process. If that's the will of this government, obviously, if they want to use the heavy hand of government, their actions will be told and people will see it for what it is.

But make no mistake, Mr. Chairperson, I'll be here at any time it takes to defend those Manitobans. If they're not here to listen to what's happening at the debate, we'll ensure that the next day and the days forward that they know, they know what this government tried to do was through the stealth of night, try to pass legislation that'll impact them.

I say, Mr. Chairperson, if the Minister of Justice is looking for a fight, well, he's found one.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Chair, I certainly support all of the comments that my colleague from Steinbach made. You know, as we've indicated on other nights, we thought we had come a long way to making the whole political process here much more reasonable than what it is by having sittings that were at more reasonable times so that people could at least be with their families so that we are mentally with it when we are talking about legislation that's important. Nobody that sits until 4 in the morning is, you know, having all their neurons clicking and I don't think that's in the best interests of the public.

It certainly sounds like a government then that is ramming through legislation. They had plenty of time to bring this forward earlier and they didn't, and now they're trying to ram it through. As my colleague said, you know, we're prepared, we're definitely prepared to sit. What I would indicate, though, because this is the Minister of Justice's bill, I would assume that he's going to be here the whole time then for all of those discussions and that he will not desert his chair, because we understand that if we're going to be sitting until the sun is rising, I hope the minister is also sitting with us because that is his legislation.

Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): I have a motion for the committee.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Howard, with a motion.

Ms. Howard: To move, seconded by Mr. Swan–I don't need a seconder? Great. I would like to move that the committee sit until 4 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: It's a motion moved by Ms. Howard that this committee sit until 4 a.m. The motion is in order. Any comment?

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do have a few things that I want to put on the record other than the fact that I had texted my wife, you know, that looks like I could be sitting until 4 and her response was, you got to be crazy.

Mr. Chairperson, I think my wife is right that there are members on the government benches that are so desperate to pass through legislation that they have to start re-evaluating what democratic principles are. You know, I sat here and I'm listening to others speak and reading some newspaper articles and I came across this one about–I guess Preston Manning had wrote. He talks about, you know, Tommy Douglas and how Tommy Douglas must be turning in his grave and what's happened to New Democrats. I am concerned that the New Democratic Party has lost its democratic principles completely.

* (20:40)

I don't believe, at this stage, and for those that say, well, we'll sit here until 4 o'clock in the morning and so forth, I think the Chamber also sits at 10 o'clock in the morning, so, by my calculation, I'm assuming people need some sort of a wind-down. They can't just drive home, instantly fall asleep–well, maybe some can. Not everyone can do that, and there is a responsibility for us to also be in the Chamber. So then one government member says, well, I've got the stamina for it. I don't think it's a macho this or a macho that. I think it's called being practical.

If this is such important legislation, where's the Premier (Mr. Doer) of our province? Why isn't the Premier here in the committee? I'll sit here as long as the Premier's prepared to sit here. In fact, I'm going to expect that the Government House Leader sit here through till 4 o'clock in the morning and to be here bright-eyed and bushy come tomorrow morning–[interjection]

Well, the member says, the government members say, let's hear from the public. Well, you know, it's a dangerous road that we're crossing when we start using our majority on a committee to force committee members to sit till 4 o'clock in the morning because what we're saying is that if it means that, I think there are 27 individuals that have given indication. If we sit till 4 o'clock in the morning and we abide by what the government wants and that's just to listen to presenters, there will be no other opportunity. Tonight's it.

If there is a presenter, that presenter has to be here tonight. I wonder to what degree that helps facilitate legitimate public input in terms of the process. I wonder to what degree members of the public would stay up till 4 o'clock in the morning to find out what sort of amendments might be moved. It's interesting to see that even for the sake of argument, let's say we somehow get finished with public presentation this evening. Then we're going to be going into clause-by-clause analysis of a bill that could just as easily have been broken into four pieces of legislation, and we're going to be expected to be able to provide diligence and possibly listen to a number of amendments and provide advice and feedback and comment on amendments. For some that maybe have been up fairly early this morning and now are committing to having to be here till 4 o'clock in the morning.

If the government is so confident, if the member in particular from Fort Rouge is so confident that her motion is a good thing, I wonder why it is that–and I find this to be the case in so many ways on so many issues with this government–that they feel so brave and courageous, whether it's in the committee or it's in the Legislature because they have–I had a teacher that would say lemmings. You know, they just kind of follow along like one little pack. Here's the idea, whether it takes us off the cliff or whatever, we just kind of follow as that pack. You take them out of that pack, Mr. Chairperson, and they fall apart.

That's why I've put the challenge out to individual members of that caucus on numerous ideas to take it into a public forum and to start talking about some of the things that they want to do. You know, again, it's like falling on deaf ears to suggest to the Member for Fort Rouge (Ms. Howard) that let's talk about some of these procedural and anti-democratic things that the New Democratic Party and this government is actually doing and she laughs.

Sometimes, some causes are worth putting ahead of your own political party, and I would suggest to you that democratic principles have far more value than the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, Mr. Chairperson. Quite frankly, and I say it with all seriousness, I think that there are leaders from the past of the New Democratic Party that would be turning over in their graves to see and witness the types of things that are taking place in this Legislature; it's just morally unacceptable.

You have a political party who likes to think that they're grass roots. Yet they're trying to prevent communications to the grass roots, Mr. Chairperson. There are so many reasons as to why it is that what's happening is just wrong, and it's as simple as that. You would think that if any of them–[interjection]

An Honourable Member: It's a filibuster.

Mr. Lamoureux: The member, the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk), says it's a filibuster. I would like to suggest that she reflect on some of the Hansards and committees during the '90s and, particularly, even if you went to the late '80s with individuals like Jay Cowan, and so forth. If you want to talk about filibustering, everything that I've learned I've learned from the best. Individuals within the New Democratic Party that ultimately knew how to filibuster, individuals like Judy Wasylycia-Leis and others.

What's happening this evening is nothing in comparison to some of those individuals. I'll tell you something. The Conservatives in government didn't, nowhere near to the same degree, walk over the rights of individual members of this Chamber and that is the reality. Maybe the Deputy Premier wasn't around at the time, but that's the nice thing about Hansard. You can check Hansard and you will find that it is, in fact, accurate. That's the reason why I challenge this government to really re-assess in terms of what it is that they are trying to do because what they're doing is just wrong.

Yes, I would have loved to have, at 8 o'clock, listened to the presenters. I feel bad for the presenters. If it was up to me, I would let the three or four that happen to be here this evening present so they don't have to witness this and then we could go on, Mr. Chairperson. [interjection]

Well, that's what I suggested. When the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan) made the suggestion that we sit till 4, I suggested after, then, let's just hold off and wait and see how the evening proceeds. [interjection] Well, the Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) is saying, well, let's go. Does that mean he will withdraw the motion? [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson, if that's the will of the Government House Leader now, is to allow for the presenters and withdraw the motion, I'm quite content with it. [interjection] Well–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux has the floor.

Mr. Lamoureux: Nothing would make me feel better to hear the presenters provide comment, but there is a process. Over the years I've learned the way in which government at times tries to rush things through. When they try to do something in an inappropriate fashion that's the time in which a person needs to speak out. It wouldn't be appropriate not to provide comment when a member from the government benches moves a stupid motion, Mr. Chairperson.

That's what this is. To allow it just to go by, have a vote and we all know what the outcome of the vote is, is because the NDP, as I say, it's like that pack, it's that pack of lemmings. They will all follow suit. They are prepared to put party ahead of democratic principles in terms of what's in the best interests in the ongoing operations of this Legislature, in its committees and so forth. They've demonstrated that time and time again. One's got to ask the question. When's it going to stop? When is the government going to realize that there's more to being an MLA than just being in power? We have seen that the NDP are prepared to abandon whatever grass roots, whatever democratic principles they've had so that they can hang on to power for a couple more years, Mr. Chairperson. That's how I am quickly coming to the conclusion on this particular bill and would suggest that the Member for Fort Rouge (Ms. Howard) just withdraw her motion.

Mr. Goertzen: I, too, text-messaged my wife and the response I got back was, be encouraged by the fact that you're fighting for democracy. I will be encouraged by that fact tonight. I've said to the minister, if he's looking for a fight, he's found one, and I mean it. We will stand strong for democracy. The only thing I'm going to say and I'll conclude this so we can hear presenters.

I want to apologize to the staff of the Legislature, the Clerk's office, and those who, unfortunately, will have to be here to 4 in the morning because of the Member for Fort Rouge, because of the Member for Minto and because of the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak).

It's unfortunate that they have to suffer as a result of the heavy hand of government, and I am sorry for them because they're innocent victims in this dispute. But I look forward to fighting for democracy.

* (20:50)

Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further comment, the motion before the committee: it has been moved by Ms. Howard that the committee sit until 4 a.m.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In the opinion of the Chair, the Yeas have it.

Committee will sit until 4 a.m. as necessary.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: We have a number of items of business to deal with. I ask the indulgence of committee members. We have a number of presenters that are registered to speak this evening, and they're listed on the sheets before each of the committee members and also on the notice board at the entrance to this committee room.

Written submissions for Bill 37 have also been received from the following individuals and have been previously distributed to committee members. First presentation written for submission we've received is from Mark Tisdale, and then Gaile Whelan Enns and then Sandra Johnston. Is it the will of the committee to have these written submissions entered into the Hansard record of this committee? [Agreed]

For the information of all committee members and presenters, while written versions of the presentations are not required, if you're going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask you to provide 20 copies. If you need assistance with photocopying, our staff at the entrance to this room will assist you in that regard. Please approach them and we'll assist you with the photocopying.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with an additional five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Further, if the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, their name will be removed from presenters' list.

I thank you for your patience. Just prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public about the process for speaking to the committee. The proceedings of our committee are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak at the microphone at the podium, whether it be a presenter or members of this committee, the Chair must first say that individual's name. That is a signal to our Hansard folks, sitting behind me, to turn your microphones on to allow the recording to occur.

We thank you for your patience and will now proceed with public presentations.

Bill 37–The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act

Mr. Chairperson: The first name I have on the list for Bill 37 this evening is Rudy Derksen. Is Rudy Derksen present?

Good evening, Mr. Derksen. Welcome. Thank you for your patience, sir.

Do you have a written presentation, sir?

Mr. Rudy Derksen (Private Citizen): No, just verbal.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you're ready. That's fine.

Mr. Derksen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak here this evening. There are constructive as well as negative aspects to this bill and here are my comments for this evening.

Setting election dates is a great idea and moves development of our democracy forward. It works to separate partisan politics from the day-to-day process of governing in the best interests of the public. It allows all political parties to work in a more organized fashion towards the general election.

Similarly, those looking to run for office can plan their lives around the fixed election date, well in advance. In this way, a much more organized plan for running for a nomination and for election can be arranged. This will benefit all parties and also all those individuals looking to enter provincial politics. It may encourage more people to jump the substantial hurdles already involved in entering politics and, therefore, provide an even better selection of candidates.

However, even this positive element of the bill is tainted when the current government excludes themselves from the intent of this bill by excluding the next election from this policy and by not fixing the next election date as June 14, 2011.

Why is this policy good for all future governments, but not this government? The impression created is that they deserve special treatment and do not need to conform to the policy they propose apply to all future governments. This attitude toward the democratic process flies in the face of democratic fundamentals, such as equality and fairness. Please remove this exemption to an otherwise positive policy initiative.

Secondly, the increase in limits on political party advertising from 50,000 to 75,000 in a non-election year to 150,000 in a fixed-date election year is positive. It increases the freedom of political parties to speak.

The real point, however, of this second somewhat positive item is that there should not be expenditure limits on political parties in the first place. Since when do limits on freedom of speech fit into the improvement of a democracy? Limits on freedom of speech are retrogressive, backwards, destructive to the democratic process. I can't imagine this fundamental concept of limiting freedom of speech would withstand a constitutional challenge. Please consider eliminating this limitation on freedom of speech. Currently, this limitation on the freedom of speech plays to the benefit of the governing party over opposition parties, whoever they are. This detracts from the free functioning of a democracy regardless of which party benefits in a particular year or election term. Why make the system less fair? It makes no sense.

Limitations on expenditures on staying in touch with the public limits the ability of a democratic system to function. Why would a government interested in refining and improving the democratic process clamp down on freedom of speech? Limitations on the freedom of speech between our elected representatives with their constituents is not only not positive, it drives the democratic process in full reverse. Why would our current government or any political party try to drive development of our democracy, the foundation of which is based on freedom of speech, in full reverse?

It is dictators or military governments, of which there are many examples in the world, that wish to weaken democracy that would tend to put limits on freedom of speech. Why would this government or any political party in a democratic country continue with an undemocratic anti-freedom of speech policy that rings of moving away from freedom of speech and the free functioning of the democratic process unless, of course, they felt that limitations on freedom of speech of non-governing parties would be to their personal benefit and satisfy their need for undemocratic control over others.

I would hope and expect that when this government falls and another party takes power that the new government would do away with this anti-democratic policy, this anti-free trade, free speech policy. But, if that happened, the current government would benefit now from limits on freedom of speech on opposition parties and benefit later as well when a pro-democracy, pro-free speech party becomes the government and dumps this anti-democratic, anti-free speech policy.

Clearly, this policy is intended to service a political party, not democracy and not free speech. Please remove this policy. It is defined terrorist groups that should have their funding limited, not democratic, free speech-supporting political parties.

Those are the positive elements with their detractions I noted in the bill. One, fixed election dates is truly positive with, unfortunately, the exception of the self-serving exemption of this current government from excluding themselves to this policy. The other is a minor improvement to an anti-democratic, anti-free speech, bad piece of policy, which is likely only a cynical effort to make an anti-democratic, anti-free speech policy appear to be something that we should continue to build our province on.

I have other concerns regarding much less positive aspects of this bill, but most significant is the initiative to further censor caucus communications, which is also part of this bill. However, at this point, due to time constraints, I would rather highlight what others who analyze and speak more regularly to these issues than I do are saying about the need to remove the anti-democratic aspects of this bill.

Bill 37, and here are some examples. Bill 37, which seeks to amend Manitoba's election laws, seriously restricts the capacity of opposition parties to communicate with electors while allowing the government to expand its capacity. By restricting freedom of speech on political grounds, it therefore strikes at the very exercise of democracy itself. Here's a point that was somewhat alluded to earlier in your discussions at the table here. I'd like to read it in full.

* (21:00)

When the CCF transformed itself into the NDP, it sacrificed much of its heritage to gain the support of unionized workers in central Canada and British Columbia. When it abandoned its social gospel roots, both J.S. Woodsworth, founder of the CCF, and Tommy Douglas for Christian ministers, it abandoned much of its spiritual heritage, ostensibly to gain greater support among secular voters.

But, when a provincial party begins to abandon its democratic roots, what can it possibly gain in return other than a few more uninspired years in office? To witness Manitoba's current government, which calls itself a democratic party, proposing legislation restricting democratic discourse, it must be hard for the true democrats among its own MLAs and supporters to bear, particularly those who do support building up our democracy, not tearing it down, not driving it in reverse for the sake of self-interest. In fact, one wonders whether the current government caucus actually saw, debated and approved this legislation before it was introduced to the Manitoba Assembly. Perhaps the government could advise if this acceptance by a majority of its own caucus was freely given.

While the feature of Bill 37 emphasized by the government in its press release has been its provision for fixed election dates, it is the undemocratic features not emphasized that are of concern. These include restricting advertising expenses by a registered political party in a non-election year in Manitoba to a paltry $75,000 or about 10 cents per voter–you can't buy a stamp for that–the continued allowance of virtually unrestricted government advertising during the pre-election period and provisions enabling the government-controlled Legislative Assembly Management Commission to censor and control opposition communication materials and budgets.

If Bill 37 is passed in its present form, it will no doubt be challenged in the courts as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and association, but this will be a long and costly process. It is hoped more democratic heads will prevail and the more anti-democratic sections of Bill 37 will be withdrawn or amended before then.

The current government has introduced a bill that should shock and outrage every Manitoban. It jeopardizes democracy, infringes on Charter rights and seeks only to keep the ruling party in power indefinitely.

Bill 37 was stealthily introduced on April 30, hidden amid a flurry of other bills and government announcements and done without consulting political parties, experts or Manitobans. This government has cynically disguised this bill as a positive move that simply sets fixed election dates. Within this Trojan horse, Bill 37 is actually an attempt to fix the next election for the current government.

Just as sinister are the government's proposals to stifle public debate by gagging communications from opposition parties. It gives the current government the power to censor communications from opposition MLAs and decide how much of this mail is sent. These measures are meant to silence opposition parties and keep voters in the dark about what the government is doing except for what the government itself wants the public to know.

This bill is undemocratic, unconstitutional and puts us on a slippery slope towards a one-party political state.

Bill 37's provisions dealing with lobbyists puts the fox in charge of the henhouse by putting the current Cabinet in charge of monitoring lobbyists. The same dysfunctional model was in place when ad scam happened and was rejected by the Gomery Commission. Giving a Cabinet-appointed watchdog the power to monitor meetings involving individual MLAs, opposition and government alike, will discourage Manitobans from sharing information with their elected representatives.

The government's goal with Bill 37 is to limit your right to know that they can maintain their hold on power. It's designed to prevent opposition parties from telling Manitobans about things that need to be said.

That concludes my comments. I would just like to, in summary, say this bill leaves me wondering, with the fundamental–some of the intent of fixed election dates is positive, but to slide these types of issues in underneath, that does not present well for the ethics of the party involved. We would hope that they would adjust this bill significantly to reflect that. Thank you very much for your time today.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Derksen.

Questions of the presenter from committee members?

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Thanks, Mr. Derksen, for your presentation. It looks like you put a lot of thought into all of the different components.

We have seen, as a party in opposition, many pieces of legislation that have been introduced under the guise of something positive, but at the devil's in the detail, and certainly the devil is in the detail in this piece of legislation where they've rolled five different pieces, significant pieces, of legislation into one. Normally speaking, when a party or a government brings in changes to elections financing and elections acts, it's usually the First Minister, the Premier (Mr. Doer) that introduces that legislation. It seems a bit passing strange to us, as an opposition, why. We can't understand why the Premier himself didn't sponsor the bill and bring it forward as is the normal practice in the Legislature. Maybe that's because he was afraid that if he sat at committee and heard the kinds of presentations that have been made, he wouldn't want to be tied to the legislation.

But many presenters before you have made the observation that, for anything this significant, you know, maybe an all-party committee of the Legislature should have taken this legislation on the road throughout the province, travelled, set up public hearings and public meetings, and let people know ahead of time what was in the legislation, what was proposed, and that that might be a better process to implement the kinds of sweeping changes that have been proposed.

Do you think that that would be a good idea, if maybe the government just took a step back and indicated that they would travel throughout the province, maybe over the summer or into the fall, look at hearing what Manitobans have to say and bring in a piece of legislation on electoral reform that might benefit Manitobans?

Mr. Derksen: Yes. I think there's an ongoing need for the public to be more involved in the political process. There's an awful lot goes on in these meetings here and an opportunity for–to simplify the process, again, of getting people to participate would be very, very helpful. Again, for people from Brandon or Thompson or Flin Flon to get involved in this process, especially with the shifting timetables, it would be very difficult. I think it's a good idea.

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Mr. Derksen, you've obviously put a lot of thought into your presentation and you've analyzed the bill very well.

Would you like to give us your thoughts on the purpose of why this government would bring in a bill like this? As I say, in your presentation, you've analyzed it very well. Can you give us some thoughts about why they would do this? I call it the omnibus bill; it included so many aspects of this.

Mr. Derksen: I could speculate, and I guess that's what I would do. It's like any document. There are the fundamental words and then there's what's underneath. If I try to read what's going on in this document, it's an effort to, it seems to me, to tilt the scales in a way that will make it easier to win a fourth term and to leave a legacy for the Premier. It's very disappointing to see that taking place. That's sort of after reading the whole thing, that's sort of the impression I'm left with.

* (21:10)

Mr. Pedersen: Mr. Derksen, you sat here and listened to the debates on the motion that was brought up to sit till 4 a.m. I would certainly like to hear your thoughts on that. You mention different communities throughout Manitoba. I can't imagine anybody coming in from Flin Flon and even sitting in the evening here till midnight. Again, if you would like to share your thoughts with this committee about it sitting till 4 a.m., I would certainly appreciate that.

Mr. Derksen: There would be some, like Mr. Goertzen, who would gladly sit here till 4 o'clock or whatever it takes. There is a very small percentage who are deeply committed in that way. For the majority, it's a non-starter. It stops communication dead in its tracks.

I would think the political process should do what they can to make it easier for us to communicate with you on what our thoughts are, rather than more difficult. Four o'clock is really stretching it.

Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you very much, Mr. Derksen, for your presentation. I, too, want to just say I found it very thoughtful and very well-presented.

You make some very strong and good points about limiting our freedoms of speech in this bill by limiting the ability of opposition members to communicate with constituents. I think it is, as you say, a slippery slope from limiting freedoms of speech into limiting freedoms of association.

Perhaps, this is the beginning of a one-party state, as you alluded to. When you start eroding the abilities of opposition parties to communicate with freedom of expression and speech, then the next logical step, if you were this government, would be just to limit political party association altogether.

It's very high-handed legislation. I think they bring it in at a time right after an election–three years, when an election is rolling around again, when people will forget. I would suggest the people will not forget their loss of freedoms.

I just want to ask you a question. Mr. Pedersen alluded to it. What is the purpose of this piece of legislation, and do you believe that it is a move towards a one-party political state, with ultimate control by the state, for the state, by one party?

Mr. Derksen: I guess that would be the extreme; I don't know that that's where it's going, but it just makes the whole system unlevel. It makes it harder for the opposition to provide a counter-view to the government. To limit the funding for opposition speech just again skews the tables and makes an alternate voice difficult to hear.

With so many of the public being only nominally involved in the political process, if you start to skew the thing a little bit, it can make a significant difference in how the political system functions. I think that we have to be very careful that the system stays level, so that both sides can be heard and fair elections can be had.

People often listen only in a very short time frame or very small time bits. For the thing to get shifted out of proportion a little bit, it can make a big difference. I don't know if a one-party state would be, perhaps, overstating it, but you would have a much-weaker democratic system and a much-stronger biased system for one train of thought than another.

That's not democracy at its best which, I thought, was where we were trying to go.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, Mr. Derksen. Time has expired. Thank you for your patience as well, sir.

The next presenter I have on the list is Cathy Cox, private citizen. Is Cathy Cox in the audience? Cathy Cox? Cathy Cox's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

The next presenter I have on the list is George Fraser, Canadian Society of Association Executives.

Good evening, Mr. Fraser. Welcome. Thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation, sir?

Mr. George Fraser (Canadian Society of Association Executives): I have an oral presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready, sir.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Minister, members of the committee. The main part of my comments will be focussed, in the omnibus bill, to the lobbyist act portion to begin with, and, I suppose, when one is speaking to the lobbyist act, I should be as transparent as I can possibly be.

I am an association manager. I currently manage two associations and I consult two others. I assist in the management of the Massage Therapy Association of Manitoba and the Canadian Agri-Marketing Association, and I am a constituent of Kildonan, the minister's constituency.

I would first like to make some comments for the record about the Canadian Society of Association Executives of which I've been a member for over 30 years now. The CSAE was established in 1951 as a knowledge-based, professional organization to promote excellence in not-for-profit management. Today the CSAE remains committed to reinforcing the many valuable contributions that Canada's not-for-profit organizations provide to the country, to this province, by supporting and strengthening the professionalism of the individuals who lead it. CSAE is the professional organization of 1,600 men and women who work for and manage many of this country's most progressive trade, professional, occupational, philanthropic and singular common-interest organizations. Education programs, research and information sources, together with ongoing professional development conferences, regional seminars, online resources and publications are the primary tools that CSAE provides to keep its members abreast of the management challenges emerging in today's increasingly complex not-for-profit sector.

CSAE also administers the Certified Association Executive program, Canada's only on-line distance learning program that specifically meets the needs of individuals who manage or work in this country's associations, charities and other not-for-profits–and by the way, it's a world leading program for the education of association managers. The CAE designation is awarded to those individuals who demonstrate knowledge essential to the practice of not-for-profit management upon successful completion of the rigorous five-course program.

The CSAE does not receive any form of government funding to help fulfil its mission. Instead, the organization derives all of its operating revenues from a combination of individual membership fees, sponsorship initiatives, education programs, research and other non-dues revenue sources. I might add that the CSAE itself is registered under the federal legislation for lobbyists. And in particular, in commenting on the legislation before the committee, some of you will probably know about lobbyists registrations and lobbyists acts across the country. Probably this month, the federal government will table its 20th report on its lobbyist act and it has recently evolved into the accountability act, and all of the association managers like myself who are in that field of management, of course, are registering themselves under that particular act.

As is the legislation here that's presented, which is essentially boilerplate legislation, you'll find it in Ontario, you'll find it in British Columbia. The most recent act prior to this would be Alberta, and the only two provinces that I know that do not have this legislation at this time would be Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. So we have a long history in this country of dealing with the lobbyist act.

* (21:20)

The Canadian Society of Association Executives has always been interested in ensuring increased transparency and accountability to Canadians in each province wherever it goes. The issue that is probably before us is with an omnibus bill. Of course, the difficulty here is that we do not see the regulations that will come with it and that, of course, in our tradition here, rests with the governing party to present those items, and most of my colleagues here will await those regulations. I think the committee should be aware that in all likelihood, there will be a registration fee, and the benchmark right now is probably $150 for professional consultants and in all likelihood $75 a year, at present, for those who manage not-for-profits. The only province that has been generous to not-for-profits at this point is the province of Québec, which allows on-line registration for free and that assists those that work in that province immeasurably.

There are also within the regulations and the administration of the act, of course, advisory opinions and interpretive bulletins. There's a lot of history on that because the committee should realize and understand that caught within this very wide web, too, not only are legitimate not-for-profits–although the target here is probably for professional-based associations and the professionals I spoke about before–but academics are also caught within this structure too. Academic freedom, of course, is a debate that you'll find yourself in subsequent to this with respect to the role that many academics play on the development side of any policy that's being developed in which they have an interest, in which they, for example, would have research capacity. So, while there have been some precedents set in that respect, this Legislature will have to go through it.

Not-for-profit volunteers, of course, also require some interpretation. The important thing, I think, here is even though we've been through 20 years of lobbyist acts and lobbyist registration, there is one fundamental flaw that's out there and it's usually undercompliance or overcompliance. Those that would be undercomplying, you might be arguing that they are simply trying to avoid their registration process and they do not register, and the difficulty that most governments have is policing lobbyist acts. The other is overcompliance, those that register as good risk management. So they're over complying and, of course, in this whole process, part of the legislation, when you begin to get into it too, talks about amounts of time that people in my position take. The Canadian benchmark right now is about 20 percent of your effort and time on a day-to-day basis is considered the amount of limit, the threshold that you would cross through, when registration should occur. That includes research time. So it becomes a very broad net and it adds to the already heavy administrative burden that a lot of not-for-profits find themselves involved in these days.

There was a presenter earlier on that I read about in the newspaper speaking about extension of lobbyist legislation to municipalities and that speaker was in favour of it. I think that speaker was in favour of the City of Winnipeg, in particular. That's an area where I think one should be cautious, and if there ever is consideration of adding it, that it should be universal. It should be something that should be applied to all municipalities. But I say you go there with caution.

The City of Toronto recently, within the last couple of years, introduced a lobbyist act, and they have had some very interesting times trying to implement it and also trying to administer it. This is another difficult area and, again, it makes it difficult to speak to this bill, because, again, we don't know what the regulations are going to look like. In principle, people like myself can be supportive, but, depending on what comes out would be very critical because this is an omnibus bill. In my very last minute, the one key sensitivity I have and the other piece of transparency I want to present is I've had the privilege of serving as an elected school trustee and I've had the privilege of serving as a city councillor with the City of Winnipeg.

The one area of this omnibus bill that bothers me was what the previous speaker just spoke to, and that's the vetting of communication for any member of any elected body by a party or a committee of that body with respect to what that communication is all about. The vetting or the editing leads to forms of propaganda, in my opinion, shaped and directed by individuals that may have particular agendas. Unfortunately, I have to say this here tonight, I think it's the ultimate of house arrest, and it should be seriously reconsidered. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for your presentation this evening. Questions from the members of the committee for the presenter?

Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Fraser. I know you've been sitting here for several evenings I hope you're being suitably entertained.

I think you've made a very clear and to-the-point presentation on the lobbyist part of this bill, but I would like to ask you your views on a couple of the other sections of the bill, if I may. I'd like you to make a comment on the so-called vote tax and another comment, if you would, on the spending limits of political parties. I'm sure you've studied that part of the bill, so, if you could comment on those two parts.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I've certainly studied it. I have a little bit of experience. I've listened while I was here and I think the most important thing that any political group has to come to grips with is fairness and balance within those areas.

We're all going to argue and debate about amounts and whether or not it exists in any shape or form. There is some value in the current legislation that we have. I think this probably goes too far. My former colleague, Jae Eadie, was here and spoke to the committee previously. I certainly share some of his ideas.

I don't have a magic solution with respect to this. As I mentioned, my prior comments about the censorship side of the legislation is vastly more important than, perhaps, these details where we find ourselves today in this time, in this society. Dollars can work themselves out.

The other decision, the other proposal is much more difficult and I think, as the previous speaker said, it will not stand up to a constitutional challenge.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for being here and for putting those very thoughtful challenges and comments to this committee.

I don't know if you're aware but, in this legislation in the lobbyist registration component of it, very broad language is used which basically exempts unions from the same rules that others have to follow. They use the language of administration, so that a union can come to government under the guise of administration, which basically leaves them wide-open to coming to the government probably about anything you want to talk the government about when it comes to a contract, because you can always use that wiggle room, because it's such a very broad definition.

* (21:30)

If the government was really feeling strongly about regulating people that lobby government, do you think that union leaders should be excluded from this legislation then?

Mr. Fraser: Well, my quick answer is, no, I don't think anyone should be excluded. When you read through the act–and it's similar across the country. It's the parts of the act that cause the issues. You'll see the first parts of most of the acts will tell you who has to comply, and then it will begin to tell you who's exempt and under what circumstances. This is where the confusion comes in. There are all kinds of mistakes have been made across the country in the last 20 years. Interpretation–mistakes by interpretation. So this is the most difficult area. There certainly has been a provision to safeguard unions to speak to negotiations and, you know, I respect that, and that's positive. Again, one can get oneself in trouble by misinterpretation. There is a whole body of knowledge growing in Canada from a legal perspective advising not-for-profit associations as to how they can comply and not comply. That begins to point out how complex it has become.

So I'm not trying to sort of beat around the bush, anything can still happen. There can be discussions informally in which the registered lobbyist neglects–if it's the federal level, for example–neglects to register that as a meeting, a meeting of chance, perhaps, in which there was discussion. I'm certain that would occur–could occur–with a union representative speaking to a contract, who ventures into public policy, public legislation, et cetera. So there's a lot of onus, too, on elected officials involved in those types of discussions to draw the line and draw it quickly, and to know the legislation. In fact, they are probably the leading safeguard in any lobbyist legislation across this country. They're the first line. They're the ones who get lobbied. I've had that experience personally, too, and you know when you're being lobbied. So elected officials of all stripes in this Legislature will now have to be very conscious of that.

Mrs. Driedger: Certainly, this particular aspect of the bill raises a bit of a red flag because it addresses the administration or negotiation of a collective agreement. Certainly, you know, I don't have a problem with the negotiation of a collective agreement because that's very straight up. But, when you throw in a very broad word like "administration," that's where the red flag goes up for me. So it appears that it's excluding the unions from having to actually even report. So businesses have to report after, you know, a lobbying effort, but unions are not going to have to. That does not seem to me that there's a level playing field for everybody. I take from what your saying that that is one of the big challenges of legislation like this, is it's understanding your definitions, understanding your words, understanding the leeway of our nuances. But there seems to be some pretty big wiggle room that the government is giving here to unions in terms of letting them off the hook and not playing by the same rules as others, because it talks about administration of a collective agreement with the government or a government agency, and that just seems very, very broad. But it seems like it's giving them, you know, an escape clause for having to adhere to this legislation.

So I take your warnings very seriously here. You obviously have a lot of experience around this issue. So I hope the government will pay a lot of attention to what you're saying. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Fraser, do you wish to comment, sir?

Mr. Fraser: Well, again–thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes. The interpretation of the word "administration" is up for grabs in some respect. I would take it at its best interpretation, and I would expect that union leaders would be dealing with the administration of their respective agreements. That's how I first read it. If the elected officials who are involved from that perspective, even at arm's length, begin to deal in other areas in and around the word "administration" or the action of administration, then major issues and problems will arise and there will be difficulties down the line.

Interpretation, as the City of Toronto is going through at present, that's the whole debate right now is what was really meant by the words. As we will find out, when the regulations are written here, what does compliance really mean. That's what we would have to wait for, and I would expect when the regulations appear, there will be more individuals like myself here speaking this evening.

I'm speaking on behalf of just our members. Not all not-for-profit managers are members of the Canadian Society of Association Executives so there probably will be others who have a similar opinion to myself. We will be drawn to the regulations from a review perspective immediately because we have to comply.

Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): I just want to thank you, Mr. Fraser, for your presentation. I did enjoy meeting with you in your capacity as the manager for the Association of Massage Therapists. If you wanted to bring some of your members down here about 3 in the morning, I'm sure that would be welcome. I also just wanted to thank you for coming back. I know you were here this morning and we weren't able to hear you this morning so thank you for being persistent.

I was interested in what you were talking about when you were speaking about not-for-profit organizations since that's something else I have some experience with, and if you have any more advice for us on how to communicate with them about the requirements of the bill so that they can balance the compliance with the administrative burden that they might face.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, there's a lot of knowledge from across the country. There's a lot of knowledge in Manitoba that could be drawn upon, and I think that will be readily made available to you, hopefully not at 4 a.m. in the morning.

Again, it has to, I think, be balanced and it has to be fair and, of course, whoever will administer, using that word again, the act on behalf of government has to bring balance to the table, too. There has to be a give and take. And on the educational side, most certainly there has to be an educational thrust associated with this, but, again, there are lots of experience from a Canadian perspective to draw upon, too. I would hope the government would use that in introducing.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, Mr. Fraser. Time has expired.

The next individual we have on our list is Craig Johnson, private citizen. Is Craig Johnson in the audience this evening? This is the first call for Craig Johnson. Seeing that Craig Johnson is not here, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

The next presenter we have, which is the second call for James Dain, private citizen. James Dain. James Dain. James Dain's name will dropped from the list.

Next person we have on the list is Sheila Michalski. Good evening, Ms. Michalski. Welcome. Thank you for your patience.

Do you have a written presentation?

Ms. Sheila Michalski (Private Citizen): I just have an oral presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready.

Ms. Michalski: First of all, I just would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to me this evening, and if I wasn't heard by 10 o'clock, I was moving to Alberta.

Anyway, secondly, I just want to say I'm appalled at the conduct of the committee. Listening since 8 o'clock, it seems like people are lack of interest and this is all just fun and games, but as a concerned citizen, I take this seriously so just wanted to note that for the record.

As a young Manitoban, I feel it's my duty to stand before you this evening and voice my concerns on Bill 37. The fact that it was introduced at the last possible moment is quite shocking considering the drastic changes in legislation that are proposed. The changes not only have a negative impact on opposition parties but as well to the public at large.

* (21:40)

Let me begin by discussing fixed election dates. I absolutely agree with fixed election dates, but, having read the proposed amendment, which reads: a general election must be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, unless a general election has been held between the coming into force of this section and June 13, 2011, I can't believe this would actually be presented in legislation, since interpreting it means simply the election can be called whenever the government so chooses. I actually had my sister read this section and she just shook her head and said, what's the point of putting it in if it's not a fixed election date? So I would like to see this amended so it reads, the next general election must be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, and then every four years after that.

This ties nicely into the topic I would like to speak on now–limits on political party advertising. Although the limit has increased to $75,000 in a non-election year, advertising expenses, the definition of them, has been expanded so, really, you're getting less money for what you have to spend on.

One doesn't have to look far to see numerous government billboards advertising what a good job the government is doing just before election time. Every time I come to and from work, I see the billboards saying what a great place Manitoba is, booming business, et cetera. I guess the millions spent here aren't included in the $150,000 limit in an election year.

In conjunction with these spending limits, government advertising, funded by us the taxpayer, only has to stop 60 days before the election date. How is that fair? You can use $15 million to advertise as much as you want and the opposition parties can only spend $150,000 to get their message across.

Let me continue to my next concern, which is the vote tax. The vote tax is yet another use of taxpayer dollars used to fund political parties. Why should I have to see my hard-earned money being spent, being funded towards political parties that I may not agree with when it should be used towards education, justice, health care, important issues?

I just want to bring to a point of other taxes here. Look at what our neighbours to the west have done with PST. They've cut PST down to 5 percent, and look at what other provinces have done to make them more–more incentive to move to other provinces, and here just every tax dollar just goes to frivolous spending. Our health care is in dire need of help. You see people in the hallways all the time. That hasn't been fixed. Look at the justice. The crime is atrocious. That has to be fixed. We shouldn't be spending extra money just on political parties. We should actually be doing something about the problems in this province to make it better. My point on this is that we discourage growth in this province and we just tax and tax and tax instead of actually doing something. We just talk in circles. Let's get some stuff done so that the young people stay here today.

My next point is on censorship. I was reading the bill and censorship is a big thing. If I've chosen and if I've elected an MLA, I want to hear what they have to say and I want to hear the facts. I don't want it to be sugar-coated by the government in power by the Legislative Assembly Management Commission that would be appointed by them. It's going to be slanted in some way. I want to hear the facts. I've elected them. They have freedom of speech. I want to know what's going on. It should be transparent, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention. It's very undemocratic and that's not fair.

In my opinion, it saddens me to think that as elected officials you're trying to tweak legislation so that you can remain in power. Instead, isn't it your job to serve your constituents and do what's best for Manitobans and make our province better?

Governments aren't voted in. They are voted out, and if you focussed on the important issues–like I said before, health care, education, justice and the economy–Manitoba will become a stronger province and your future track record would stand up for itself. You wouldn't have to worry about any of this frivolous election bills that you're trying to change.

Let me close with a few quotes from Preston Manning when I read him in The Globe and Mail on May 20.

Bill 37, which seeks to amend Manitoba's election laws, seriously restricts the capacity of opposition parties to communicate with electors while allowing the government to expand its capacity. By restricting freedom of speech on political grounds, it therefore strikes at the very exercise of democracy itself.

As well, he also said, to witness Manitoba's New Democratic Party proposing legislation restricting democratic discourse must be hard for the true democrats among its MLAs and supporters to bear. In fact, one wonders whether the NDP caucus actually saw, debated and improved the legislation before it was introduced to the Manitoba Assembly.

On that note, I'd just like to thank you for your time this evening.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Michalski, for your presentation this evening. Questions for the presenter?

Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Ms. Michalski, for being here and for putting your comments forward and getting involved in this process, and thank you for your patience in staying here to do that.

My question to you, you touched on one of the areas, and that's around advertising. Since 2000, the government brought in legislation that basically only allows opposition to spend $50,000 a year on advertising. Would you be surprised to know that, in that period of time, the government is spending anywhere from $8 million to $15 million a year on advertising, compared to the $50,000 that they allow opposition? Do you think that sounds very fair?

Ms. Michalski: That's not fair at all. I just think it's atrocious spending that much money when it could go towards something more important like health care, which is a big issue, justice, other issues, besides putting billboards up saying Manitoba's Spirited Energy. I don't agree with that at all.

Mrs. Driedger: I'll fuel that flame a little bit more then because, in a six-year period, once they brought in the legislation, that kept opposition parties to $50,000 a year. In that whole period of time, the government spent almost $70 million on advertising in just a six-year period. Now, granted some of it is necessary, but one certainly has to wonder about $70-million worth of government advertising in six years. How much of that was absolutely necessary?

I just want to touch on something related to what we could spend money on better than a vote tax, because the vote tax will actually cost taxpayers about $2 million by the time the next election rolls around. I asked a question in question period today and, when you tie the two together, it is almost obscene to see the government taking money that should, perhaps, be going to other things. I found out within the last few days that, on the eve of a world conference on breast cancer, Manitoba has the highest mortality rate in the whole country when it comes to breast cancer.

I also received a letter from the Canadian Cancer Society that says that this NDP government is underfunding fairly significantly breast cancer screening in Manitoba. This is coming from the Canadian Cancer Society. They're also indicating that this government needs to properly fund breast screening. One thing said, if they were doing that, then perhaps we would see the mortality rate decrease in Canada, at least to the Canadian average. But we're the highest of all Canadian provinces when it comes to the mortality rate for breast cancer. That, for a lot of reasons, troubles me a lot.

Is this one of the areas where you think that money could be better spent?

Ms. Michalski: Absolutely, I agree, that would be a great area to focus on. I think the public, in general, would be appalled to hear the amount spent on advertising and then a fact like that, but I guess the information just doesn't get out there to the public.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Just to pick up from where the Member for Charleswood is leading us. Every year, the government of the day will advertise, spend $200,000, and that would immediately follow the presentation of the budget. Every media outlet will pick on the budget presentation and report on it, highlights, and so forth. Every media outlet does that. Yet, government still spends $200,000 to advertise.

* (21:50)

From a taxpayer's point of view, is there any value, in your opinion, to the government advertising that it has now presented a budget?

Ms. Michalski: Absolutely not. You may as well take the $200,000 and light a match.

Mr. Lamoureux: Then why do you think they would do it?

Ms. Michalski: Just to show that they're going to meet the budget, to get people's interest. Then they say that they're going to meet the budget; they're doing their job. Just to get media, not media attention, but to perk the public's interest, even though there's media attention.

I'm not exactly sure why you would spend $200,000 when all the media outlets know you're doing this and broadcast it for you. It's kind of ridiculous.

Mr. Lamoureux: The last question is in regard to the time you sat very patiently–I heard your opening remarks and so forth.

If you were responsible, ultimately, for the passage of legislation going through a committee, do you believe that it is appropriate to sit past midnight? Do you have any thoughts or opinions in terms of what's right or what's wrong in regard to committee sittings?

Ms. Michalski: I think it's ridiculous to think that any human being would want to be up until 4 in morning. You've been up since 7 or 6 in the morning. Your brain is not going to function 24 hours; you need your rest.

It's only right for you to show your courtesy and listen to the people seriously when they're up here presenting. No one can do that at 2 or 3 in the morning; it's just not going to happen.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thanks, Ms. Michalski, for your presentation.

There have been other members of the public who have made presentation on this bill, who have said some of the same things that you have said, and that is that this legislation was brought in very late in the session.

I know that there are many Manitobans who still haven't heard the full story on Bill 37 and what the impact is going to be, although it is receiving a bit more publicity.

Do you think that it might be a good idea, like other presenters have recommended, if the government were to step back, indicate that they are going to lay this bill over, at least, advertise broadly? That's one place they could spend some advertising dollars rather than some of the feel-good ads that they've placed in the past.

Advertise public meetings throughout the province, have an all-party committee and look at real electoral reform that might benefit Manitoba taxpayers. Do you think that might be a good idea?

Ms. Michalski: Absolutely, I think that would be a fair–its funny, I spoke with people at work in letting them know that I was coming here this evening; they had no clue about what was going on. I gave them copies of my notes, showing exactly what was stated in these amendments that you want to make.

They couldn't believe it. I don't think they know how to go about coming forward to speak, or maybe they're not willing to come forward and speak in a public setting.

But it would be good to have, I think, forums all over Manitoba, I heard someone say, so that people from all over the province, not just Winnipeg or local areas to Winnipeg, could speak.

I think it shouldn't be pushed through last minute. It should be carried over to the fall and get real discussion on this, because this is going to affect the future, especially The Elections Act here. It's going to have a huge impact.

I just want to note as well, what's going to happen when the next government comes into power? You're playing with a double-edged sword. This legislation comes in, something happens, and the government that's in government right now doesn't win. Then you're on the opposite end of it.

Look what happened when you restricted corporate donations and union donations. For the first five years, you were fine but the last few years, the Conservatives, I believe, have out-fundraised you $2 million to $1.4 million.

It's just too rash to push something through like that. Fine, if you're going to, but, eventually–politics is like economics. It's circular–you know what I mean–[interjection]–exactly. Thank you, Mr. Goertzen.

Mr. Chairperson: No further questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Michalski, for your presentation this evening.

Next presenter we have up is Peggy Prendergast. Peggy Prendergast? This is the second call for Peggy Prendergast. Peggy Prendergast's name will be dropped from the list.

Second call for Norman Asher, private citizen. Norman Asher? The second call for Norman Asher. Norman Asher's name will be struck from the list.

Next name we have, first call is David Enns, private citizen.

Good evening, Mr. Enns. Thank you for your patience. Welcome. Do you have a written presentation, sir?

Mr. David Enns (Private Citizen): No.

Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Please proceed when you're ready.

Mr. Enns: I'd like to start by thanking you all for letting me speak here tonight, and, secondly, I'd like to say I'm not just here to waste 15 minutes of your time. I'd actually like to make my voice heard, which is the reason I'm here. I know I will waste 15 minutes of your time, but that's not the sole purpose of this.

So I'll start by saying I think fixed election dates again, are a great idea. They let the public trust you and know when an election's coming and they don't let anybody use elections or election dates as a tool to win that election. The only problem with this I see, like other people have noted, is unless a general election has been held between the coming into force of this section and June 13, 2011. This is a little tidbit that completely ruins the entire section of the bill. Like I was reading from Bill 15, why not do the work right now and just set it, have a fixed election and have the good legislation put through right now?

Why do you have to do it after the next election? It's using again the election as a tool, which it shouldn't be. It should be something set out on an even ground and nobody can use. I'm just wondering why the government must, every time they bring forth a piece of legislation, ruin it with making it a tool and turning it into something they can use and the opposition can't.

The second point I'd like to make is on freedom of speech. First off, I'd like to ask the government if they would restrict, say, a radio station from advertising, saying you can't advertise above 20, 30, 40 or $50,000 a year. You never would. You see billboards, you see TV commercials, you see radio commercials with radio stations saying, listen to us, our music is better, our policies are better and our events are better. You wouldn't restrict them. In fact, the only people I can think of that are restricted from this are political parties. It's a breach of freedom of speech. I don't see why they can't advertise to their heart's content. If that's what they choose to spend their money on, let them spend it. Let them get their voice out there.

Another note on this is that the MLA for our area would be elected to be my voice or the thousands of voices in our area in this building and across the province. So, when you restrict that party or that MLA from speaking with a limit of $75,000 or be it $100,000, it could be a million dollars, when you restrict them, you're restricting my voice and the thousands of people in that constituency.

So, when you take in total, 19 constituencies will be restricted from speaking. Give or take, that's about 400,000 people that you are taking freedom of speech away from. That's over half of the city of Winnipeg you're throwing into a soundproof box and not listening to. It's absurd. It's unheard of. Why would you stop these people from speaking? You wouldn't stop them speaking on a street corner and saying what they would like to say, be it about partisan politics, about a radio station, about a football game. You wouldn't stop them. So why are we stopping people in this building from advertising about what they believe in and what they've been voted in to speak on and represent?

On my third note, as you may know by now, I voted Conservative in the last election, and I knew full well that Hugh McFadyen was the party leader. I knew who my MLA was and I was in full support of their policies and what they said they were going to do. Now, saying this, if our MLA or Hugh McFadyen or Premier Doer came to my doorstep any evening and said, you voted for me, now give me $1.25, I'd say, no, I don't choose to support this party financially. I have a very limited budget being a student, so it's not within my budget to support you. I choose not to and I haven't to date. So I don't feel I should be forced into such thing as this. If I do choose to support, great. I could donate a dollar, $50, $100, or $4,000 if I so choose. But that's my choice. Nobody, and that's nobody should be forced into this.

* (22:00)

Now, if people do choose to support your party financially, kudos to you, but nobody should be forced, as I say. I think our government should be learning to live within its means and not turn into a common thief just to survive. You're obviously not living on the street. You're not destitute. You don't need more money. You have millions of dollars at your expense. So why do you need, I think, a million dollars by the next election? For what? You haven't said what you're going to put it to use towards. You haven't said where it's going. Why do you need it? Why are you taking it?

If you so badly need $250,000 a year, amounting to about $1 million by the next election, then people aren't supporting you. If you can't fundraise this amount, then the 1.2 million Manitobans aren't supporting you. So what does that say about our public today? If they're not supporting our current government, you're obviously not doing something right. If you're not doing something right, change it. You should know that, as officials representing these people.

Now, I was going to finish there earlier on, and I was sitting here around 8 o'clock and I heard you voted to sit till 4 a.m. Now, I heard one member earlier saying he would like the members on this side to stop talking and let the presenters present what they have come to say. Now, if you'd really, really like to hear us or anybody else, you wouldn't sit past midnight. You wouldn't sit past 10 a.m., when it's convenient for these people to come in. They have jobs, lives and families that they have to attend to before coming here.

Now, if you think anybody's going to come out past midnight or 3 a.m. or 3:30, it won't happen. So, if you really do think these people will come out, you're crazy, and they won't.

Another point I'll make in this is that if you, as a government, actually thought that Manitobans would stand behind this bill, then they would not try to force this committee to sit that long. If you really thought this was a good piece of legislation, and it's not just a cash grab, you wouldn't be hiding this. Why not stand up beside the Golden Boy and tell every Manitoban what you're doing, if you think it's a good piece of legislation.

You've been elected to represent these people and do what's in the best interests for them, not for you. There are 50 or so of you and 1.2 million of them. So what's best for them really counts, not what's best for your party. If what's best for your party keeps you in power, who cares? If the other party should win, be it the Liberals, be it the Green Party, anybody, an independent, if they should win–they should win. You shouldn't be using anything like this as a tool to stay in power. It's these people you're representing and not yourselves.

Now, I'll ask the member backing this bill if you would call his friends or family any time after midnight. We'll say at 2 a.m., call them at home, have the phone ring three or four times, wake up the household and ask them to come down here and present if you would really like to hear their voices. I'll offer a phone right now for him to call right now at about 10 p.m. at night, or any phone call from anybody would not be seen as a good thing in a household. There are children asleep, there are people tired from a long day's work, that don't plan on being up this late. I'll offer a phone, I'll offer anybody to a phone right now and interrupt this right now to call and ask them to come down here. I'd like them to see the reaction they'd get–be it from a wife, or a son or two-year-child that's asleep.

So, I'd just like to make that point, knowing that if you really want this to go through, you'll ask Manitobans what they think and not try and hide behind times or motions such as going until 4 a.m.

And with that, I'd like to thank you again for letting me speak here tonight, and that's all I have to say.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Enns.

Questions from members of the committee for the presenter?

Mr. Pedersen: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Enns. It's perhaps the good part about having to sit here longer is that you heard more and bring us more in your presentation. As we've heard tonight about how much government advertises their feel-good advertisements about their budget and about things that they spend money on and then, conversely, we've got this method of committees where very few of the public is engaged or able to come to it.

Do you have some thoughts as to how you would like to see this–when a bill such as Bill 37 is being brought in, being proposed, do you have some ideas for us in how you would like see the general public become involved in presentations to it, input into it, and suggesting changes or, certainly, for the betterment of the bill?

Mr. Enns: Thinking about it now, these committees could go 6 to 9 every night for as long as they need. June 12 shouldn't be a date set out that we have to end this. If every single Manitoban wants to give you their opinion, you should sit there and listen to them. If it takes two years to do it, it takes two years to do, but if they want to come out and tell you what they think, they should be able to do it.

If that's a way to do it, that's great. Otherwise, if you have to go to them and find out what they want to say by going to Brandon, Dauphin, Flin Flon, anywhere. Setting up public hearings would be wonderful if that's within your time restraint, but such dates like June 12 when this committee has to be done shouldn't be limits on this.

Mrs. Taillieu: Yes, thank you, Mr. Enns, a very good presentation, the voice of reason here. It was just excellent. I think your points are all very well taken. I certainly saw the government MLAs perk up and listen to you, so perhaps there will be some more thought go into this because you raised some very good points.

I think the whole notion of more people being informed about what this legislation is and broader consultations throughout the province would go a long way to convincing the government of their wrongdoings in this bill. There are certainly a lot of people out there that aren't really as informed as you are.

Again