Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): I would ask if you would call first of all the motion with respect to the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections respecting judicial compensation which was received this April 7, 1999. That would be followed by continuation of debate on third reading of Bill 17.

I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that, in accordance with subsections 11.1(5) and 11.1(6) of The Provincial Court Act, the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections respecting judicial compensation received on April 7, 1999, be concurred in.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as I have requested, if you could call Bill 17 for continuation of third reading. Should the House give that third reading this afternoon, I think you would find agreement then to proceed to private members' hour, to call it five o'clock. I think there would be agreement of the House to do that. I would also advise the House that should that bill receive third reading in this Chamber this afternoon, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be available to give it Royal Assent at a quarter to five. So I imagine the House would be prepared to interrupt whatever proceedings are taking place at that time to allow His Honour to attend at the Chamber for that purpose.

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable First Minister, Bill 17, The Elections Amendment and Elections Finances Amendment Act; Loi Modifiant la Loi J lectorale et la Loi sur le financement des campagnes J lectorales, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington, who has nine minutes remaining.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I, at the close of business yesterday, was concluding my remarks on Bill 17 and talking about the various recommendations of the Monnin report that were to be found in Bill 17. There is one other outstanding recommendation that I would like to speak to, and I think it is also, as they all are, quite important.

The Monnin report talked about the fact that it is important not only to have processes in place that give the Chief Electoral Officer and all parties to elections and political activity the tools with which to make informed decisions and good choices about whether they are going to go forward with an accusation or not of wrongdoing under the act, but also recommendations that come from the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba as a result of elections and as a result of situations which I hope we never have again like we have been faced with today as an outcome of the Monnin report. The recommendation states that the legislative committee that deals with The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act must sit within 60 days of receipt of recommendations from the Chief Electoral Office whenever those recommendations come forward. There would be no time lag allowed longer than two months, whether the House is sitting or not.

* (1430)

So, Madam Speaker, the recommendation of Monnin has been accepted, and Bill 17 does provide for the timely consideration of any recommendations coming from the Chief Electoral Office, and that is within 60 days of laying the recommendation before the Legislature. So there will not be an opportunity for any government to delay consideration of recommendations that come before it from the Chief Electoral Office. I think it is incredibly important that this part of the legislation be enacted because historically the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer have been timely. They have been all designed to make the electoral process more open, more accessible, and the people who participate in the electoral process, whether they be candidates, chief financial officers, auditors or political parties, more accountable. Openness and accountability is what we should strive for as people who are involved in the political process. It is what people like Mr. Havel, whom we are honouring today, have fought for, have gone to prison for, and many people throughout the history of this world have died for–a system of government that looks very much like ours.

I think, Madam Speaker, in concluding my remarks on Bill 17, as I started, it is very unfortunate that we had to have a situation that ended in the Monnin report and Bill 17. Many people have spoken on that, and I am sure the people of Manitoba, in their wisdom, will speak on that very shortly. But the one positive thing that has come out of this whole dreadful situation is that we have in Bill 17 some exceptionally good amendments which will make our electoral process more open and accountable and will, with good will on all parts of everybody who works in the vineyards of public service, ensure that nothing, nothing like what has happened to the people of this province in the last four years as a result of this vote-rigging scandal ever happens again.

So we are pleased and delighted to be able to support Bill 17, its process and its contents.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on Bill 17. When it came through second reading I did talk in essence about the principles, as our rules indicate we are supposed to on the bill, and went through the different recommendations that came out of the Monnin inquiry, the party's position. The thing that I would like to again reinforce in third reading is one of the recommendations in which I think it is absolutely critical that we see action, some sort of concrete, tangible action taking place. In part there was an, albeit short, bit of a discussion in committee in regard to the issue.

I think that it is imperative that political parties have some form of code of conduct or code of behaviour or code of ethics, whatever one might want to call it. I look for not only leadership in all political parties to be able to demonstrate to that good will. We also believe that there is a need for Elections Manitoba ultimately to provide some base or some core of values that would be reflective of what expectations Manitobans would have of their political parties. We are really talking more of the mores that Manitobans would have as a whole in regard to codes of ethics and behaviour.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, the other recommendations I commented on during second reading, what I wanted to go to was the committee meeting. I have always, as in the past, felt that there is a great deal of benefit whenever you go into committee meetings, committee hearings, where you have members of the public that come forward and make presentation. There is always something that quite often triggers a number of ideas and thoughts. There was one presenter that I thought was quite interesting, and both presenters expressed some valid concerns, but it was Mr. Nielson that really intrigued me in the way in which he addressed this particular bill.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Nielson went on to talk about areas of concern that he and through his contacts–and I must say, they seem to be fairly excessive in terms of the Internet and so forth. He talked about ways in which we would have a better democracy. In good part, it was in reference directly to the bill. As I had pointed out in my comments to Mr. Nielson, that even though in Manitoba we do have an excellent system, many, including myself, at least in part, would argue that it is second to no other in the world.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, there is so much room for improvement in making our system a better, a more democratic system. There were a couple that maybe, I thought, this would be an appropriate time to talk about. That is one that has always been somewhat of a surprise, and this is more so at the local level.

I, in most part, believe that there are certain expenditures that are not taken into account in a provincial election that should be taken into account. I can only feel safe in commenting on my own area, because that is the area in which I have gone through a number of campaigns, and comment on that particular experience. You know, like all candidates that live in their ridings, they put up signs. I too had a sign, and my sign, I guess, was in the backyard because it faced Keewatin at the time. That is where I put my sign and so we did not have one necessarily on the front lawn. So canvassers would come through, and it was interesting that my wife, who was at home taking care of our children, made reference twice to individuals from the NDP party who were knocking on doors. One was a union individual from B.C. Another was a union individual, I believe it was from Alberta or Saskatchewan, I am not sure. The reason why I say that is because I think that there are many expenditures that should be taken into consideration. I would think that this might be occurring in all political parties to some degree, but I qualified it by commenting on–I am talking about the riding which I represent, the riding which I am most familiar with.

Madam Speaker, if there are indeed paid individuals, paid lobbyists, representatives that are working at a local campaign, that is a legitimate thing for them to be doing. I do not question that, but I do question whether or not that should be reported as an election expense. I would suggest to you that if you have organized, whether it is organized labour or other organized interest groups that are providing or making available individuals, whether it is on a part-time or a full-time basis, there has to be some mechanism that takes that into account because there is an advantage when that occurs.

* (1440)

I look at individuals that put efforts in my campaign, and I can, with all honesty, indicate to this House that, you know, membership on my campaign involves a great deal of union individuals, people who are heavily involved. My campaign manager, or former campaign manager, Jhun Martin, was one of the poster–can I call it poster boys for promotion for the CIA, the Canadian international union.

An Honourable Member: Which one?

Mr. Lamoureux: Jhun Martin.

An Honourable Member: CIA, what union is that?

Mr. Lamoureux: The union for the Transcona yards. [interjection] Well, this individual worked out at the CN yards in Transcona. Many of my constituents actually work throughout Winnipeg, are participants in unions. My apologies if I used the wrong acronym for the union.

Madam Speaker, the point is–and I know that it is a sensitive issue, but I am appealing to Elections Manitoba. I had an individual who indicated that he was given opportunities to be trained through the union on campaigning and then asked to go into a particular campaign to work against different political parties. I would share, you know, my provincial campaigns cost me, personally, money. There is no corporation that donates thousands of dollars to me. I believe the landlord of my campaign office has given me a larger than average donation, but you will find that all my campaign donations–and I am quite open to provide wherever possible an open accounting for where I receive my money from, but I can assure the Leader of the official opposition–

An Honourable Member: Who paid for that Free Press one day there?

Mr. Lamoureux: –that the advertising, or I should not say–the member is throwing me off here. Not the advertising, the campaign, the people that volunteer in my campaign and the efforts that they put in is fairly great, fairly given. [interjection] Madam Speaker, the leader is throwing me off. I will just pause for a quick second so I can catch the gist of his question.

An Honourable Member: The Free Press ad.

Mr. Lamoureux: Are you talking about the Free Press survey that was sent out to all Manitobans? That was paid by the Liberal Party, from what I understand.

Well, I get the gist of what the Leader is now trying to say. Madam Speaker, to the member for Selkirk. One should never be presumptuous. He just heckled: we will miss you, implying that the NDP will take over in the riding of Inkster. I will give a little bit of advice that I can give him, and that is never to take one's constituents for granted. I will never take my constituents for granted. I hope and trust that the member for Selkirk, by what he just said, does not take his constituents for granted. If he wants to take his constituents for granted, I would ask him not to take the constituents that I represent for granted because not only is he doing a disservice to my constituents, he is also doing a disservice to the individual that might be an opponent for me in the next provincial election.

But, Madam Speaker, as members can tell, it is a very sensitive issue, and that is the reason why I bring it up because I do believe there is a responsibility for Manitoba Elections to continue in a very proactive way to find out how campaigns at the local level are in fact run, that there is a responsibility for Elections Manitoba to ensure that all candidates as much as possible are put on an equal playing field. That is in fact what I am arguing for, that if in fact there are organizations that are third party that contribute indirectly, that directly assist a particular candidate, that that is something at the very least that is worthy of looking into because it does have an impact, and I have seen that first-hand.

I know, going into the next provincial election, that there will be an organized attempt from a sector that does not necessarily reflect the wishes of a union membership, as an example, and it saddens me. It saddens many of my campaign workers that are very actively involved in unions. I say it because it is there. It is very real, and I use it as an example in Inkster because that is the area which I am most familiar with. I would suggest to you that in fact the same sorts of things might be occurring in other areas. It is not to pinpoint and say it is just the union elite or select union elite that are doing it. There, quite frankly, could be the same sort of tactics that would be used in other areas through other interest groups.

I would suggest to you that what is important here is that when we go into a provincial election, we are asking individuals or Manitobans to look at the candidates that are being provided for them to address or to look up, whether it is through the web site or making the connection through the media what the political parties are saying. We are expecting, and that expectation is there because we, in part, say that we want a democratic system that is fair. We do that by what laws we currently have in place by putting in election expenses, by putting in caps.

Well, I would suggest to you that there are many loopholes that are there, and those loopholes need to be addressed whenever possible. The reason why they have to be addressed is that I really believe that it should not be up to an interest group of whatever, whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or the Manitoba Federation of Labour. It should be up to the candidates to be able to communicate their messages through their volunteers or if they have paid individuals, that those paid individuals are, in fact, registered with Elections Manitoba through the donation that you have to give.

I believe that by doing it in that sort of a fashion that we will have a better system. That is the reason why I bring it up. I do not bring it up to take cheap shots at a political party or an outside organization. I bring it up because Mr. Nielson, in reporting to the committee on these amendments, talked about a number of different things that he believes are important in order to make us have a better government, a better form of democracy.

He talked about issues such as what happens inside the Chamber. He was disappointed, for example, that so little time was given for that individual to prepare on such an important issue and make better comment on the legislation that was before us.

Well, I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. Not only do we need to look at Elections Manitoba and the role that they have to play in ensuring that what change is necessary, and change is necessary, that that change be continual and continuously moving forward so we get a better democratic system, but we also need and have a responsibility to look internally. One of the examples that Mr. Nielson made reference to was, of course, an orderly fashion within this Chamber.

* (1450)

Well, there were a number of us who served on a committee, and it was alluded to at the committee hearing, of the provisional rules. In the provisional rules, there was a process that would have seen us sit in the falltime, sit in the springtime. The idea was that in the springtime we would actually have legislation brought in. The summertime provided ample opportunity for individuals to digest the legislation that has been brought forward and then in the falltime have those committee meetings and third readings. In the springtime we would have dealt with the Estimates or the budget process.

Well, I bring it up because there are not as many opportunities to be able to talk on an issue that is as important as the one that we have today. We talk about the pillars of democracy or the foundations. In the last year I have really been somewhat disappointed. It is difficult for me to explain that disappointment, saddened by what I have seen. I really, for example, believe that we should have sat last fall, that we raise and spend billions of dollars every year. There is a responsibility on all members of this Chamber to be in here and to ensure better accountability of those expenditures, of those revenues that are being generated. Both political parties are to blame for that not taking place. Both the official opposition and the government could be soundly criticized for that. When I look at The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, Madam Speaker, again I would suggest to you that not only both but all political parties have to share in the blame in how we, far too often, in my opinion, are too partisan in approaching this issue. With the issue that I raised just a few minutes ago, I have had New Democrats agree with me that that is in fact something that has to be dealt with.

When you sit down with people in a very apolitical way, Madam Speaker, you will find that the room for consensus building is overwhelming. As parliamentarians, we recognize many of the deficiencies that are in fact there. That is the reason why I had suggested that, as with Mr. Nielson and others, there is a role for outside organizations and individuals also to lobby Elections Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, I, as an individual, as an MLA, have attempted to express concerns that I have had with the elections. Third-party advertising is another concern. Again, we have to be very, very careful. We have to respect the rights. When I look at, for example, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, they have a role to play in informing Manitobans in elections. There is no doubt about that. Our nurses' union has a role to play in informing Manitobans what is actually happening. But there is a role for Elections Manitoba to start, at the very least, looking at some of the issues that can have impacts on provincial elections, and if in fact there is a need for Elections Manitoba to be more involved.

Madam Speaker, I say that and I caution, and I trust that other members will not exploit those particular comments, because it is easy to say something in opposition and say that endless amounts of dollars should and could be expended. Government, it goes without saying, is going to try to limit some of those expenditures, especially on the record. I would find that equally as repulsive. I do believe the government in terms of the expenditures–and that question, I think, was either raised today or yesterday: advertising. You know there is a huge amount of speculation that the election could be called as early as May 4, possibly May 11, and we see a lot of advertising taking place. Well, again, that is an issue in which one has to be very diligent. You cannot use government dollars in order to prop up a government, or you should not be using government dollars in order to prop up a government leading into a provincial election.

You know, this time the government, which is Conservative, is being soundly criticized for the dollars that they are spending. Well, 11 years ago, the roles were reversed, that you had the then Conservatives criticizing the government of the day, which happened to be NDP, on the advertising that they were spending using government tax dollars.

What that means, I would suggest, is that we need to be more diligent and more proactive in trying to come up with guidelines that will ensure that abuse of that nature will be marginalized.

I am not sure if Elections Manitoba has a role to play in that area, but it is definitely an issue that does have to be addressed because it is not fair. It is not appropriate for governments to be using tax dollars when, in fact, they should be using party dollars. That is something which causes a great deal of concern, I believe, not only for me, Madam Speaker, but also would be a concern of my constituents.

I believe when we talk about our Elections Acts, whether it is the Elections Act of Manitoba or The Elections Finances Act or the boundary redistribution, what Manitobans want first and foremost is a sense of fairness of no political interference in the process. That is something in which I, as much as possible, have advocated for. I would assure this House whenever I have had discussions to the best of my knowledge with Elections Manitoba that I do approach those discussions in a very apolitical fashion. I believe that there is a role for political parties to lobby Elections Manitoba, and to that extent Elections Manitoba does meet with party representatives to get feedback on legislative changes. I think that is a positive.

Where we really need to improve is the way in which the local campaigns are ran, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would encourage, and I could not encourage in strong enough words how Elections Manitoba, I believe, has a role to look at the microlevel of campaign, how those campaigns are financed, and how those campaigns are ran. Because there is no doubt in the minds of Manitobans that they want to see fair elections. That has been clearly demonstrated with the Monnin report–very clear in the Monnin report. That, I would argue, is the macro. That is something in which Elections Manitoba has been very aggressive in addressing the macro, the party at the larger level, but if there is an area in which Elections Manitoba needs to improve, I would suggest to you it is at the microlevel. Again, I have personal examples of that and I am more than happy to share that with Elections Manitoba at any time. At another time, I would like to have another opportunity to go into more details.

* (1500)

I made reference to the financing aspect of the microcampaign. There are other things that occur at the constituency level during campaigns that Elections Manitoba has an obligation to look at, at the very least look at, and hopefully come up with a way that would see legislation brought into this Chamber and passed much in a fashion that it is today in the sense of all political parties or all MLAs support and being very much aware that after I sit down that there will likely be other speakers who might want to address the finances and how the Liberal Party's finances actually come about, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think that there is room for improvement in all three political parties in the whole area of fundraising and how fundraising takes place for parties. I do not need to be given a lesson on how it is done, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know how it is done and I am not impressed. I think that there is room for huge improvement on that front. There is no political party, at least inside this Chamber, that could escape or come out clean on this particular issue. There is a real need to visit that issue, but I would suggest to you that that is an issue that Elections Manitoba is, in fact, looking at or I trust is looking at.

Part of the reason why I am standing today is more so that microlevel. That microlevel is where I have the concern, because in the long run it is the constituency by constituency and what happens inside those constituencies that is going to ensure that we have a sense of democracy which Manitobans can feel comfortable and confident in, and that is critical. We do not want people to lose confidence in the system that we have.

In conclusion, I trust–[interjection] The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) wants me to continue, but I do not have to fill the 40 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the primary push for me this afternoon, I believe–

An Honourable Member: Is to get re-elected.

Mr. Lamoureux: –is not necessarily to get re-elected, even though it would be nice. My constituents will determine that. It is more so to emphasize the importance of looking at the local campaigns, and it is absolutely critical to see Elections Manitoba more proactive on what takes place at those local campaigns and come up–[interjection] The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) brings up an excellent point, independent returning officers.

That is a recommendation from Elections Manitoba. It is a good recommendation, and there are many other things such as that that could be done, that there is a responsibility to see done, and I hope to be given the privilege to be able to continue on as an MLA to ensure as much as possible that we will have a better sense of democracy at the local level and at the macrolevel.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to say it.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Yes, thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to enter into this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had occasion to hear some of the comments of members of this House, and I think there have been some very valid points put on the record. Some points I agree with. Some points I agree with in sentiment. Some points I think, particularly of the preceding speaker, are inaccurate. I actually would like to spend some time, although I am limited in my time, in dealing with some of the inaccuracies I think that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) or previously the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had put on the record with respect to this act.

I do not want to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to focus on the essence of why we are here and why we are occasioned to deal with the particular amendments that we are dealing with with respect to this bill. We are not talking about a minor issue. We are talking about an attempt by a political organization, by a group of individuals in a political party, to fix an election campaign. That is something that is unprecedented in this jurisdiction.

Now, I appreciate the comments of the members for Inkster, The Maples and others with respect to things that go on at the local level. Things go on by all political parties that I do not agree with, that I do not think are appropriate. I think those that are appropriately discussed and reviewed and made to ensure that this system is more democratic and fair, I agree with that 100 percent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we are talking about here is the most significant political scandal in Manitoba history since the Rodmond Roblin government was brought down in 1917. I do not think that we should lose sight of that. I want to cite an instance when I met a constituent of mine. I do not know how that constituent votes. I was on the street and I was surprised with the fierceness and the anger that he approached the issue of the Monnin inquiry. He said to me, these people cheated. These people went against every democratic principle that we represent.

Now this individual is of Polish extraction. He said for years we fought in Poland to have a democratic state. Manitoba has sent observers to democratic elections across the world in order to demonstrate what democracy is all about, and yet we have these same individuals involved in the government who attempted to fix an election campaign.

* (1510)

I can hardly talk about it in this Chamber, because I think it is so disgusting. I go further. It is one of the most tragic and saddest episodes in political history. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I think that the Roblin government, or anyone associated with the Roblin government, would have hatched a scheme to fix elections as happened under the present regime? I say not. Do I think the Walter Weir government would have done that? I say not. Do I think the Ed Schreyer government would have done that? I say not. Do I think that the Sterling Lyon government? As much as I disagree with Sterling Lyon on so many issues, I always felt that Mr. Lyon was a man of principle. I do not think the Conservatives under leadership of Sterling Lyon would have done that. I do not think the Conservatives under the leadership of Sidney Spivak would have done that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Conservative group under the leadership of Premier Gary Filmon not only did that but was allowed to do that and allowed to cover up on that, and I think that is disgusting. I think the Premier ought to have resigned. I think the honourable thing he should have done would have been to resign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, reference was made by the member for The Maples when I heard his comments on previous reading that candidates and individuals from political parties sometimes say things and do things that we cannot control, and that is true. All of us are caught in situations or are involved in situation where people around us in the zeal and in their best intentions perhaps do things that we do not approve of. It happens to all of us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have your key, your No. 1, campaign organizer together with the head of your Treasury Board, together with lifetime members of the party hatch a plot to launch a political party in order to steal votes away from another political party in order to win an election is one of the most disgusting things that could be done in a democratic process. Many of us, most of us are second or third generation from countries where we never had access to democracy. In fact, the institutions are so worshipped––I know when I go to any Ukrainian hall anywhere in Manitoba, there is always the picture of Taras Shevchenko on one side and Queen Elizabeth on the other, and I know that those people in that hall fundamentally worship the democratic system and honour the democratic system that we have–that to have a government and key government officials attempt to subvert the system is nothing short of disgusting.

I welcome these amendments, and I know that these amendments will go some way towards preventing this kind of action from happening in the future and perhaps would have gone some way from preventing this action to go as far as it did. But I tell you, what went on literally makes my stomach upset. My constituent, whom I met on the street and told me about that, was just disgusted.

I do not know how members on that side of the House can––I do not know how they deal with it. I do not accuse, by the way, because I have a lot of respect for members on the opposite side of the House. I consider myself a friend with most members on the other side of the House, but I do not know how they can go into meetings and caucus meetings with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and not be self-absorbed in trying to get to the bottom of how this could happen to a political party that I believe would not have done it under Walter Weir, would not have done it under Sidney Spivak, would not have done it under Sterling Lyon, would not have done it under Duff Roblin and further back, but somehow were able to do it under the leadership of the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon). I think that question mark will remain, and regardless of what happens in the future, that question mark, that asterisk will be beside the member for Tuxedo for the rest of his political and after-career because it is such a disgusting and horrible episode.

Now, if this was the first time that this plot––if this plot had materialized out of nowhere, perhaps I would not have been as critical, but I just want to go back to an episode which appeared to be isolated at one time, and that was during the by-elections, which, I believe, occurred in 1992. It was not the '93 by-elections, it was '92 when two members of the Premier's staff phoned an open-line show. They phoned an open-line show and criticized a Liberal candidate. That was bad enough, and I suppose, again, all of us might have zealots and have others that would do something like that, but let me continue. Those individuals phoned the open-line show, and then when confronted, denied that they had phoned the open-line show. It was then found to be that there were two individuals in the Premier's Office who had done the phoning. Now that perhaps was an isolated event. Perhaps.

An Honourable Member: Then they wrote letters to the editor.

Mr. Chomiak: My colleague indicates that letters were written, but let us look at this. They phoned. Okay. I would accept that. They then were caught, and they lied. Then they subsequently were found to be working in the Premier's Office and were disciplined. Okay, that will happen with all political parties.

Subsequent to that, the Premier for New Brunswick attended the Olympics, and it became a national issue that the Premier for New Brunswick was attending the Olympics and was being sponsored by IBM. Now our Premier, the member for Tuxedo, was also attending the Olympics, and he was interviewed by an open-line host in Winnipeg and asked: Who is paying for it? He indicated it was the Pan Am Games. Subsequently we discovered that the Premier's hotel was being paid for by IBM. Now, let me add, this was a national scandal. The Premier of New Brunswick was forced to apologize and return the money. And the member for Tuxedo, the Premier, came back to Manitoba and said: I sent the money back; I did not do anything wrong. End of issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, first, assistants in the Premier's Office phone, lie, and then own up. Then the Premier gets caught in the IBM scandal, then he owns up. Then we have the incident for which we are dealing with the amendments to the act, which has precipitated this entire debate.

I frankly do not believe the First Minister. I regret having to say that, because I do not think I could have said that about Duff Roblin, about Sidney Spivak, about Walter Weir, about Sterling Lyon. I would not have said that about them, but I can say that about the present incumbent in the office, and that is sad.

You know, the Premier, well, I do not want to go on, because I just find it disgusting. I do not want to relive that history, because I find it so distasteful. But the point I want to make–

An Honourable Member: You are loving every second of it.

Mr. Chomiak: The member for Assiniboia says: "loving every second of it." I find this entire episode disgusting.

An Honourable Member: So do I.

Mr. Chomiak: I am glad the member for Assiniboia finds it disgusting, and I am curious to see what her comments will be about these amendments, and I would be hopeful that she would ask her Leader some of these questions that we are raising here today. I hope she will ask the Premier, whom she worked for directly, the same questions that we are asking today, because I think we ought to get to the bottom of this.

I think a concerted plot on the part of the chief election official for the Conservative Party, on the part of the secretary of the Treasury Board, on the part of lifetime Conservatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is beyond pale, anything that we have dealt with in this Legislature. It is beyond–sure the $500,000 is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on health advertising, and sure the sign campaign stuff is not acceptable, but to hatch a plot outside of the Premier, inside the Premier's Office to launch a political campaign, to take votes away, to cheat and to fix an election is beyond and is in a category all of its own, which is why I have sat here and not dealt with this issue.

* (1520)

Will these amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, get to the bottom of the issue? I do not think so. Perhaps if these amendments had been in place we would have dealt with this scandal and the taint of this scandal a lot sooner.

Drafting a code of ethics by an individual who leads a party, you know, is to me a nonstarter. The present Premier has to step aside when it comes to a code of ethics if he intends to–I do not think we would have needed a code of ethics when this party was led by other individuals. We did not need a code of ethics when Sterling Lyon led the party or Sidney Spivak led the party or Walter Weir led the party or Duff Roblin led the party, but when Gary Filmon leads this party, they have got to have a code of ethics, but frankly a code of ethics is too late.

I think the Premier ought to have resigned. I think the Premier's reputation is tarnished by virtue of this. Again, I was so struck, I was struck on the doorstep by the comments of my constituents to this matter. You know, I am used to hearing concerns about health care, and I am used to hearing concerns about taxation, and I am used to hearing concerns about education and concerns about public safety, but I did not expect, I did not expect the anger on the doorstep with the present Premier, Premier Filmon, and the scandal.

I am sorry to say that the scandal taints all of us. That has been canvassed in this Chamber and we have talked about it, but I was surprised at the extent of the anger that the public has towards our Premier as a result of this scandal. Do I think it is justified? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be resolved? Yes, I do. How should it be resolved? The Premier should honourably resign as a result of his leadership and what he allowed to happen.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the Premier did not know, and that is a big if, in my opinion, I guess the question would be–and again I want to emphasize that we all have people around us who, through their zeal and efforts, wish to do the best they can. All of us, I am sure, have been guilty at some time of having people do things that we did not think was appropriate. But when questions were posed and questions were raised, and when this leader did not follow through, as he did, then I think he has no choice but to resign.

An Honourable Member: He called a full inquiry.

Mr. Chomiak: Now, I am glad the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) indicated the Premier called a full inquiry, because I want to relate to her an episode that was witnessed by the media in this House. [interjection] Yes, the Premier called a full inquiry after he told me personally he would never call a full judicial inquiry. I said to him: "You will call a judicial inquiry." And her Leader and good friend, the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) said: "No, never." And I said: "You will call a judicial inquiry." He said: "No, never."

The only reason he called a full judicial inquiry was he was forced by day after day of questioning in the Legislature by members in this House. He had no choice but to call for a judicial inquiry, and he would not have if we had not pushed him. He told me so himself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He told me he would not call a full judicial inquiry. I told him he would. He called a full inquiry, and the member attempts to use that as a defence for the Premier? Good heavens, the Premier did everything but stand on his head and spit nickels to avoid calling a judicial inquiry, and only when he was forced into a corner did he do so, and he has been back-pedalling and doing everything in his power to remove himself from the accountability as a result of that.

You know, it is hard to believe that in the 1990s in Manitoba, of all places, this sounds like something that would come up maybe 60, 70 years ago, perhaps in other jurisdictions. But to think that we are in the same category as other jurisdictions where there was a planned, concerted effort to circumvent the rules of democracy is absolutely disgusting.

It is hard to believe that we can go to other jurisdictions and review their elections when we have, on the record, in Manitoba, a scandal of this proportion.

You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, these amendments will assist us in preventing perhaps something of this kind from happening, but I cannot think of a political party or political figure in Manitoba history over the past 25 or 30 years that I have been directly involved that I think–and I am thinking very carefully–was capable of doing this. I cannot think of a political figure that I think would go as far as the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) allowed to happen with his group.

Now I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker–and I have said to members opposite that I do not believe members opposite knew of this. You know I am quite surprised at the anger some members opposite express–

An Honourable Member: It is not anger, it is annoyance.

Mr. Chomiak: And the annoyance, as the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) expresses, when a judicial inquiry has found as many significant things: In all my years on the Bench I never encountered as many 'blank' in one proceeding as I did in this inquiry.

You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker: In all of my years on the bench, I never encountered as many 'blank' in one proceeding as I did this inquiry.

How can members opposite defend that? If the apology is sincere, then I think the member for Assiniboia would accept it as such.

As I said, is it not ironic that I am speaking today during a day when one of the great political statesmen of this century is visiting our province and our city, indeed an individual whose statements and whose books I have read and whom I have quoted, and it is ironic and perhaps a bit sad that on a day like this I have to talk about a scandal that has served to denigrate Manitoba and all of us through its intensity and through its bitterness and through its disgusting follow-up. You know, for the member for Assiniboia, I would rather win the elections on the straight issues than have to deal with this kind of stuff, and if the member for Assiniboia could call her party to order and if she could somehow rein them in, perhaps we could deal with the issues as they relate.

I suppose members opposite would rather we not speak on it. I would rather not speak on it. I find this disgusting. I find it disgusting, and when I was quoted at the press conference saying it was one of the saddest days in the political history of this province when this report came out, I meant that, and it was, and I think members in this House feel that. So I guess the question is where do we go from here. We have these amendments to build on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will go some way, I suppose, to restoring the tarnished image of this province as a result of the neglect and the malfeasance of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and those members of the Conservative Party who participated in the scandal and in the plot.

But I think it is a sad statement on perhaps–and I would wish to have this question answered: Is it the Conservative Party today or is it the leadership of the Conservative Party that have allowed this to happen? That is an interesting question because I do not think the old Tory philosophy would have sustained this kind of scandal, and, as I said previously, I do not think any of the previous leaders of the Conservative Party whom I am familiar with, Duff Roblin, Walter Weir, Sidney Spivak, Sterling Lyon–

An Honourable Member: When did you change you mind about them? You hated them when they were here.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) is chirping from her seat. It reminds me of a former member who sat in that particular seat. The only difference was I used to pay attention to what the comments were of that former member, because he had some interesting suggestions.

* (1530)

But as I said previously in my comments, I do not think that the previous leadership of the Conservative Party would have allowed themselves to be dragged into this morass. I dare say if any of those leaders were caught in this kind of a scandal, I think they would have done what the parliamentary system demanded. They would have done the honourable thing, and they would have resigned and saved their party and saved the public and saved the process from having to go through what we have had to go through in this jurisdiction as a result of hanging on for purposes, of what I do not know–for what I do not know, self-vindication, perhaps. I do not know and I am not going to speculate as to why the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not do the honourable thing and did not resign as a result of what happened, because no matter how you mince it, no matter how you cut it, no matter how you try to dance around the issue, it still goes back to what my constituent said on the street, that he could not believe that a party could do this, could get away with it and could stay in office as a result of a scandal of this kind.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been urged by members on my side of the House to refer to some

of the quotes from this report, but I do not even like reading these quotes anymore. I mean, I cannot believe that in Manitoba in the 1990s we would have a Chief Justice accusing a political party of this kind of activity. It is absolutely disgusting. When I anticipated the report coming out, I never thought I would see words like this written on a piece of paper about a political party led by the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon). I think it is an indictment of the leadership, and it is an indictment of perhaps 11 years of far too long in office. I do not care who the political figure is, whether it was the figures I referred to, whether it was Duff Roblin or Sidney Spivak or Walter Weir or Sterling Lyon. Even those individuals I think after 11 years in office would have realized that their time was up and would have realized after 11 years in office matters creep in and cracks appear and a renewal is necessary, otherwise corruption, which is inevitable, sets in. The problem is it set in a lot earlier in this particular regime, and perhaps it set in at the very onset for all that I know, in reference to the comments I said earlier. There is much, much more that I could put on the record that I choose not to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to continue dealing with some of these issues.

I close by saying I think these amendments will do something to right the wrongs that have occurred in Manitoba, that the honourable thing for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to have done in the parliamentary system would have been to resign. The decent and correct thing, and something that would have removed the tarnish from, the stain from all Conservative members, would have been for the Premier to resign and do the honourable thing and not worry about clinging into office for whatever reason I do not know.

The Premier no longer has the confidence or the legitimacy to continue one day longer. After 11 years he does not have the legitimacy or the confidence in this House or the people of Manitoba. The Premier could go a long way towards improving the situation in the province by doing the honourable thing, and that is stepping aside and doing the right thing for the people of Manitoba, not clinging to office, not hiding behind the defences, not having to defend the activities of his friends and associates on the plot, on the worst scandal to hit this province since the Rodmond Roblin scandal that brought down that government–the worst. Think about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In 70 years we have not had a scandal of this kind until this government. [interjection]

The member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) can say all that she wants, but I just reiterate to her that I do not think Duff Roblin, Sidney Spivak, Sterling Lyon or Walter Weir would have been involved in a plot or allowed a plot like this to be hatched under their leadership. I do not believe it. As much as I disliked Sterling Lyon–good heavens, and I had my disagreements with Sterling Lyon–I thought he was an honourable man and I say he is an honourable man. I do not think Sterling Lyon would have allowed that to happen. If Sterling Lyon was caught in the position that this Premier was caught in, he would have done the honourable thing and he would have resigned whether he knew about the plot or not, whether he knew about IBM paying or not, whether he knew his assistants were phoning an open-line show and denied it or not. The honourable thing would have been for this Premier to resign, not cling to power, and he would have removed the taint from all of us in Manitoba.

When we have someone like Mr. Havel in Manitoba, we would not have to sort of hold our heads because we have just gone through a political scandal that threatened to undermine democracy at a time when his nation is coming into a system of democracy. We all come from second and third generations, from countries where our parents and grandparents cherished our democratic system and fought for a democratic system, and now we have a leadership that sought to undermine our democratic system.

An Honourable Member: That is unfair.

Mr. Chomiak: That is unfair, the member for Assiniboia says. For the secretary of the Treasury Board, for the head of the Conservative campaign, for the leadership of this political party to allow to happen what happened did not undermine democracy. Then you did not read the Monnin report. You did not read those quotes, and perhaps I should read those quotes from the Monnin report, because that is the most indicting part of the Monnin report, where he used the individuals who are vulnerable to try to subvert the democratic system, individuals whom you do not have the time of day for most of the time, but if you want to use them in a political campaign, you do it. That is why I hate talking about this report, because it is disgusting. If we think Saskatchewan was bad, that was financial corruption, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They did not try to fix a campaign. Show me another jurisdiction in the past 50 years where they tried to fix a campaign. Show me.

An Honourable Member: British Columbia.

Mr. Chomiak: Well, put it on the record for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). He talks about other provinces. I know the Socreds did a lot in British Columbia, but I do not even think that the Socreds in British Columbia tried to fix a campaign like this party and the leadership of this party did, Madam Speaker.

Having made my comments on this bill, I hope not to have to speak about this report again. I hope that in our political future we do not have an episode of this kind. Frankly, I do not think any member who took over leadership of that party whom I am looking across would allow themselves to get involved in this kind of a despicable, corruptible act.

With those comments, unless I should–perhaps, members opposite are asking for more, but I know members on this side of the House wish to put their comments on the record. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I rise to add a few remarks, to make a few remarks, add a few comments to the debate on Bill 17. I, like the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak, do not necessarily relish a debate on this particular subject, although there are various elements in the bill that are worthwhile supporting. I am sure none of us in the House have difficulty in supporting the passage of the bill because the specific recommendations in it are based on the recommendations of the Monnin inquiry.

I think, Madam Speaker, that Manitobans, by and large, are well served by their public representatives. I think, by and large, this is true whether you are talking about MLAs, M.P.s or city councillors or municipal councillors. I think, by and large, I as a Manitoban and we as Manitobans are well served by people who are elected and who, I believe, are basically good people, honest people, who want to do a conscientious job.

* (1540)

Now, we may have terrific conflict in terms of policies. We may not agree on the policies in education or health care or social services. Yet I am sure we all have the same goals, same objectives, and that is the welfare of the people of Manitoba. We all have the same objectives of wanting to ensure that the people of Manitoba enjoy the highest standard of living possible; that they have quality public services, quality education, quality health care, and so on.

Our differences, of course, are how we get there. Our policy differences are quite legitimate, so we can disagree, as we often do and as we usually do, on the policy approaches, left and right and whatever, nevertheless, I think whoever–and I speak as one who has been here about 30 years. I have been on both sides of the House–15 years on the government side and 15 years more or less on this side–and I know what it is like to be in government. I know what it is like to have that responsibility, and it is difficult. You do your best, and you think you are making the right decisions; but, as I have said to some of my colleagues on occasion when I think back, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes when you think you are bringing in a great program or a great policy, you find that people get upset about it or it does not work the way it was initially envisaged.

There is no question that this whole episode has really grown. It has become much bigger than anyone here, I am sure, anticipated initially. Of course, once the inquiry got rolling and all the presentations were made and the reports in the media, everyone in the province, including myself, became more aware of what was involved. I did not pay that much attention initially. I did not think it was that much of an issue. It was a concern, of course. Vote rigging should not be condoned by any means, but, at the same time, I thought, well, it is a problem. I did not think that it would be expanded as it has been obviously with the Monnin inquiry and of course with all the statements that have been made to the inquiry and all the information that the inquiry uncovered.

We should be concerned that this whole episode is a kind of an episode that does undermine our democratic system. It undermines the confidence that people have in their elected representatives. It undermines the confidence that people have in the party system, and this is very sad. I become very concerned whenever I read in the papers or hear on the media, hear on the news about problems that a particular representative may have, whether it is in Quebec or Saskatchewan or wherever, the whole episode of the Saskatchewan Conservative MLAs. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for those individuals. It is a tragedy for the province of Manitoba, but I say it is a tragedy for all of us. It is one of those episodes that also is undermining the confidence that the public have in our system.

So if any of us err or go astray, it does reflect on all of us whether we like it or not, because people very cynically say: oh, well, those damned politicians, what do you expect? This is really sad. Public office, in my view, is among the highest callings that one can pursue. It is a public office. Holding a public office, you have the trust of the people, you have the responsibility to serve your fellow citizens. It is one that is not a selfish calling, it is a selfless calling. It is one that you give of yourself. Indeed, many members, and particularly those in the cabinet, do sacrifice, and I know of many instances, their personal lives, their family lives, because of the time and effort and energy they put into performing their duties as an administrator, as an elected official, many a family has paid the price for that.

I tell people who cynically say to me, well, what do you expect, you people? There are some people, it just boggles my mind the comments they will make about elected representatives. They are not talking about any party, they are just talking about elected people, and they make such horrible statements, I would not even want to stand up here and repeat them. They are terribly negative, terribly uninformed. I like to ask them, well, what do you suggest? If you do not like our democratic system that we have where we have people who stand for office and try to do their best and for some reason or other there is a failing or they pursue a policy you do not like, you complain about it, but what do you suggest? What was your alternative? I like to urge them to get into politics themselves. I mean, do not sit there and complain.

Many people, incidentally, who do complain are the people who have the least amount of knowledge as to how the system works, whether I am talking whether it is provincial, federal or municipal. So I say to them: get into politics yourself and do what you can, whatever party you choose. Get involved and make it even more democratic, bring more people in. It is far better than any alternative. I often say, well, if you do not like this system, you can have Hitler. You can have a dictatorial system. You can have a Franco Spain or you can have a Stalin. He did not worry about public opinion. They did not worry about all kinds of individuals and their particular concerns. They did not have to feel that they responded. You can have a dictatorship if you do not like what we have.

There are a number of threats to our political system. There are a number of threats to what we offer the people in the system we have. Incidentally, I would say, Madam Speaker, I think the parliamentary system that we have, for all its failings, is perhaps one of the best systems we have in the world. Our neighbours to the south of course have what I would call the congressional system, where you have a division of powers between the executive and legislative branches, and you have a system whereby, although there are parties, they do not have the firm, strict caucus system that we have. Therefore it leads to a lot of difficulties, namely the opening up of individual members making them vulnerable to lobbies by various individuals and groups within the United States. I think it is really sad when you find that many American senators and representatives are influenced unduly by specific lobbies. There are all kinds of areas where lobbies are very effective. There is a gun lobby; there is a tobacco lobby; there are lobbies on oil and gas; there are lobbies on just about everything under the sun.

I am reminded, when I speak of the gun lobby, about a program I heard a few days ago where a U.S. state senator in Colorado was speaking, I think it was on As It Happens, and she was talking about the National Rifle Association and it, as a very powerful lobby, influencing the state legislators in Colorado where this tragedy occurred last week, where a massacre occurred in this high school. At any rate, before the Colorado State Legislature is–and I do not know whether it has now been withdrawn, but she said there is a bill, she was talking last week, before this state legislature that is going to allow anyone in the State of Colorado to carry a hidden weapon. Anyone can carry a hidden weapon, and that law will countermand and overrule any municipal or regional restriction on guns because a lot of the cities and towns in Colorado have certain restrictions. This law will countermand that, will override that, and everyone will be able, once the law is passed, to carry a hidden gun.

She was asked by the moderator, well, surely this is not going to pass, or what is going to happen? She said it is going to pass, and she said one of the reasons it is going to pass is because of the influence of the National Rifle Association, the gun lobby. Specific members, in effect, were in the pockets of the gun lobby. This is sad. You see other examples in the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. House of Representatives where the tobacco lobby has a great influence and is preventing laws to be passed that would curtail the use of tobacco in the United States. At any rate, I am saying that even though we have our difficulties with the parliamentary system, I think it is far better than what we see in the congressional system that is operating south of the border.

We have problems and deficiencies, and I think one which I would like to highlight is that there is probably too much executive control in the parliamentary system. A premier or a prime minister, let us say a prime minister, has far more control than a president of the United States. The president of the United States has to balance off his power against the Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives. A prime minister in this country, once he is elected with a majority, has infinitely superior powers, and we can see this with Mr. Chretien right now. What Mr. Chretien says is what goes in the Government of Canada, and I think that is sad. That is far, far too much executive control.

* (1550)

You see that in this Legislature, as well, where there is too much control in the hands of a premier, and I say that no matter what the intentions are of any premier. They may be very good intentions, but there is a lot of control in that person's hands, perhaps too much control. Maybe we should have a system of freer votes where people can vote on the basis of their conscience, on the basis of what they believe represents the interests of their particular constituents rather than being bound, as we are, so closely and strictly by caucus solidarity on just about every issue. There is room for more free votes.

But, having said that, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that we are all concerned about the comments made in the Monnin report, and one, of course, is the knowledge of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this whole episode. If the Premier tells me to my face that he knew not of it, I would believe him and I would take him at his word. But what is happening, and I can tell you, people on the street do not believe that he was totally ignorant of what was happening. These are people in Winnipeg, in Brandon, who just on their own bring it up and said that he knew of it and if he did not know of it he should have known of it because he was the Premier. He was the boss, he was on top, and because the people involved in the scandal were very close to the Premier.

Taras Sokolyk was campaign manager and the chief of the Premier's staff and had known the Premier for 15 years. There was Jules Benson who was a key political strategist and head of the Treasury Board, which is a civil service position. Admittedly, I recall back in the Schreyer years, we amended I guess it was The Civil Service Act to allow civil servants to be more engaged in politics, but it was never meant that the very senior people, key people, you know, would be in that. I mean if somebody was working in the Highways department on a road, or somebody was providing some technical service in the Department of Health or Agriculture or whatever, we did not feel that we should restrict that person from participating in politics, providing certain rules were followed, you know, taking leave of absence, et cetera.

But here the head of the Treasury Board is a very key civil service position. It is a very key position in the government, period. Many a person has said to me that the head of the Treasury Board is probably the most powerful person in government, even more powerful than a lot of cabinet ministers. Then there is Gordon McFarlane, the party comptroller. There was a Susan Hoplock mentioned in the report and of course involved in this, who is a top appointments official and campaign office manager. Then, of course, Allan Aitken, who is the Interlake campaign manager. Cubby Barrett, former PC Manitoba Fund board member and honorary lifetime PC member.

As far as Mr. Aitken and Mr. Barrett concerned me, I would consider them sort of local people. When I first heard about this, I thought, well, this is a local thing. Something is happening in the riding, whereby they are attempting to run another so-called native party candidate to take votes away from the NDP and come up the middle sort of thing. But then when you get these other names that I mentioned–Sokolyk, Benson, McFarlane, Hoplock–this is beyond a constituency matter. This is involving the party itself, including the others who are volunteers like Arni Thorsteinson the PC Manitoba Fund chair and also head of some government boards, then Bob Kozminski, a long-time fundraiser for the PC party. So these are key people who were involved with the central party organization and in some instances with the central government.

So to that extent I was surprised, and I think this is why people are concerned, because of who was involved. It was not simply a few people at the constituency level who ran away with some enthusiasm and did what they did. Mr. Justice Monnin makes a number of quotes that I found very surprising. Page 16, he says: "In all my years on the Bench, I never encountered as many liars in one proceeding as I did during this inquiry." This is incredible. [interjection] It is a quote. Another quote: "It is disheartening indeed to realize that an oath to tell the truth means so little to some people."

Another one: "A vote-rigging plot constitutes an unconscionable debasement of the citizen's right to vote. To reduce the voting rights of individuals is a violation of our democratic system." Another quote: the basic premise of the vote-rigging plot "was that aboriginal people in these ridings had historically voted for the NDP, but the 'aboriginal vote' would be split if there were aboriginal candidates running. The attempt here at vote splitting . . . was in my opinion clearly unethical and morally reprehensible."

This is Chief Justice Monnin's statement. These are not my statements. These are statements from the report. Page 11 from his inquiry, Judge Monnin says: "Political mores have reached a dangerous low when one party member can actively support his party, but sees nothing objectionable in helping to finance and organize the candidate of a second party in order to harm a third party."

Another quote: "I cannot ignore the fact that throughout this episode, especially during the investigation and at the hearings, some of these witnesses exhibited a degree of arrogance or 'I know better' attitude."

And then another quote: "A considerable amount of time, effort and money was expended by this Commission in order to confirm what should have been freely admitted at the outset." "The bank records and other documentation of the PC Party of Manitoba (Election) account of other individuals had to be obtained and examined to find out what really had occurred."

So these are comments made by the Chief Justice, and they are actually very shocking. We can go on to all kinds of details. He goes into all kinds of details. On page 18, "I believe that this plot had its origin in mid-March 1995 during a meeting held in Winnipeg in Sokolyk's office at Party headquarters. In addition to Sokolyk, Aitken, Barrett and Trachuk were present."

At any rate, he refers to Gordon McFarlane who "breached the law in causing a false statement to be filed with Elections Manitoba contrary to secs. 81 and 83(b) of the Act." He asks: "Why did he, Benson, as the top civil servant who was supposed to be out of the political realm, ask for the records, bank statements and cancelled cheques of a political party and proceed to mark and note these entries? He had no business being there in the first place." That is a quote from page 45.

Another quote from page 56: "Of these 350 cheques, an estimated 127 were flagged as indicating that the date, year, name of payee, and the amount payable in figures and letters were in Benson's handwriting. A similar number of coding slips or vouchers were prepared by Benson as well. It would appear from an examination of exhibit 52, that Benson went to PC campaign headquarters and prepared cheques and vouchers on least nine separate occasions."

Then on page 57, another quote: "Benson obviously did not tell the whole truth regarding the extent of his involvement in the 1995 election campaign." "I am of the view that Benson's involvement was improper, and that certain party members failed to see the clear distinction between a civil servant and a party volunteer."

At any rate, Madam Speaker, there is a lot of shocking detail in the report. I am referring to information that is public, has been published for all to read and see. He goes into detail on many members, many Conservative members, party members that were involved. He talks about cover-up, about lying, about breaking the law and obstructing justice to inquiry lawyers and investigators and including committing perjury under oath.

* (1600)

At any rate, Madam Speaker, I will not go on and on about this. Others have dealt with this at some length. I just say that I am shocked. I just in conclusion say that I am shocked. I thought originally it was not the right thing to do. I thought it was a local constituency matter. It turned out to be centrally organized and co-ordinated. It is a sad day for the Conservative Party. It is a sad day for Manitoba. It is a sad incident for Manitoba.

I agree with all the recommendations in the bill. It comes out of the inquiry. I have just one comment, though. He talks about a code of ethics that should be incorporated in each party's constitution, and I think this is sad. This really should not be necessary. It should not be necessary to have a code of ethics, no more than it should be necessary for each member to sign a code of ethics for her or his own conduct. It should not be necessary. People are elected, they have responsibilities, or they are appointed to party positions and they have responsibilities. We should expect the highest standards of honesty and integrity from those people. It should not be necessary for someone to put in the code of a party what is right and what is wrong. This is sad as well.

There are other recommendations. Some of them are minor. Some of them are much more significant. I would have liked to have seen one suggestion, and that is the setting up of an independent returning officer. I had mentioned this to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) earlier. I think my experience has been that returning officers are usually defeated candidates from former elections or people who are very active for the party in power. It would be far better, it would be the right thing to do, if we could somehow or other change the act so that in future we have returning officers who are trained and who are selected in an unbiased way and provide independent service.

I can tell you from my own experience, although I survived, in the last election the person who was the returning officer in my constituency was a person I had run against about 10 years before, and it made me a little bit nervous. It made me a bit nervous. Especially, I can remember I came with about three to four times the number of signatures I had needed on my nomination papers, and I presented them in plenty of time, and the returning officer is supposed to give you a certificate, a receipt. He refused to give me the receipt then because he said he had to study them to make sure they were truly citizens and resident in Brandon East, even though by that time I had been a member for 25 years, and, I mean, you could see, obviously, these were people who live in the riding, signed three times the number, four times the number that I needed. So he gave me a temporary receipt instead of the official receipt. It made me a little bit nervous because it was a lot of work to get those names. At any rate, the election came off, but that sort of thing–and who knows what else has happened or did happen because we did not have a totally unbiased and independent returning officer. He or she can make things difficult for certain candidates.

At any rate, Madam Speaker, I put those few thoughts on the record. I believe there are others in the Chamber who would like to contribute to the debate, and I certainly look forward to their remarks. Thank you.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record today in support of Bill 17. I want to begin by saying that this is a very sad time for people in this House; in fact, for people in the province.

You know, Madam Speaker, this plot, this vote-splitting plot that brought on the Monnin inquiry and the subsequent report, this plot was hatched at the highest levels of the Tory party. We are not talking about some low-level person in a constituency who got out of hand; we are talking about people as high as you can get in the Conservative Party, people who were running the campaign. So it is no surprise to me that the Conservatives say, well, you know, this is no big deal, that it was not successful. That seems to be their reason for saying that it is not serious. They say, well, it was not successful.

Well, Madam Speaker, let us take a look at Swan River, as an example. In Swan River, the successful candidate, Rosann Wowchuk from the NDP, won by only 36 votes. Now, had this candidate been a little bit more successful, the MLA would have been one Fred Betcher, PC candidate, with no credibility, and we would have been sitting here four years later trying to unscramble the omelet that these people created. So this is not a minor happening. This could very well have been successful in that riding.

The other problem or the observation I have here is what would happen if these people had gotten real serious? What would have happened if they had brought out some of that real Tory money? If Big Bob had pulled in the wheelbarrow and rolled out $100,000 to independent candidates, they could have been successful.

As a matter of fact, when you listen to Bob Kozminski's comments in the Monnin inquiry where he says, essentially, that he would do anything that it took. So using that as a mentality that runs these people, then it is not inconceivable that this time around they might use some real money, that they might find some real candidates and that they would attempt to vote split, vote fracture, on a larger scale than they did in the past.

I guess that is probably what would have happened had we not uncovered this scandal at this point, because you see they would have done a bit of studying. They would have studied what went wrong with the previous program, and they would have decided–[interjection] That is right. As the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) says, they would have learned how to do it right. They would have theorized that Nelson Contois had received 118 votes for a $5,000 expenditure. Well, you know, if we could just double that to $10,000 maybe we could double the vote total to 240, and that would have been, sort of, the ground rules would have been established. So this time Taras and the rest of the high level Conservatives who ran this operation would have had kind of the basis of how to proceed here. They could have expanded it into more constituencies. They could have increased the amount of money involved, and they could have found themselves more serious candidates.

So I think that the people who brought this whole scandal to the public did the public, did the whole system a very big service to nip this thing in the bud now before it became a real serious and permanent aspect of the electoral process in this province.

An Honourable Member: Did we get thanked?

Mr. Maloway: The member for Crescentwood asks: "did we get thanked?" That is a very good question because the people in this party sitting across from us should be thankful that this was discovered at this point before it got any worse.

* (1610)

But you know, Madam Speaker, it is all part of this win-at-all-cost mentality in this government. We only have to look back at the Premier's history in politics to discover that that is basically his modus operandi, win at all costs. And, you know, so far this Premier has been–you know, he reminds me of the cat with the nine lives, the Houdini. He wins his leadership against big odds, and I think he kind of developed a formula there on how to do it. He was criticized at that time. He was criticized at that time in the leadership with doing all sorts of irregular things, but he managed to get through that process successfully. Then a couple of years later when his own party were trying to do him in, the former member for Pembina was trying to do him in and other members in the caucus, he was saved by a snowstorm that time. So he had a natural disaster to save his skin.

Well, now he has a different set of challenges, and I am not so sure that he is going to be successful this time. I talk to a lot of people in a day and I can tell you definitely the bloom is off the rose with this Leader. I do not know how they are going to conduct this next campaign, but certainly you know with PC off the signs and now the Filmon Team off the signs, my suspicion is this is going to be the Donovan Bailey campaign or it is going to be the local candidate will be on the signs. It will be the Vic Toews campaign and Filmon will disappear. But once again, that is their problem. They will have to sort out how they plan to deal with the Premier, who in fact may be not the positive force that he was in the past campaigns and in fact he may drag them down in this election.

He may in fact pay the price from the cumulative effects of all of the different activities that have gone on on his behalf over the years. I say "on his behalf" because I do not pretend to know or to be able to say definitively that he knew or he did not know about these things, but clearly what we see here is a culture that promotes that kind of activity, that rewards in fact that kind of activity. In fact, when the people that helped him in his leadership campaign, once he was successful he proceeded to reward them with jobs. Of course, there were other messes that came out of that process, so he is basically I think kind of operating on a limited time at this point and he may survive this. We do not know, time will tell.

Another area that we are going to have to take a look at sometime, what happened back in 1988, the famous Jim Walding story that is yet to be told, and who was the leader of the party when all that was happening and who did not know, did not know what was going on. [interjection] And, yes, what did Frank Clark know? That is right. So the leadership has to start at the top and what we have got here is a very loose style of leadership, a delegation of responsibility to people around and the whole concept of plausible deniability. You know, I guess back in 1973, Richard Nixon found out how far he could take that, that whole process.

A number of years ago, and I think that where we are today came about over a whole process. You know, years ago elections were fought and it is well documented in different parts of the country where it was common for people to buy votes of people, where in the Maritimes, I believe, people would be paid in rum or paid in money, and the system was so sophisticated that they would send somebody in and he would bring the ballot out and they would mark it outside the polling station, and then they would give it to the next voter, and the next voter would go in. That way they always knew how the person had voted.

Through a series of changes over the years we thought anyway that we had brought the process into a more reputable type of environment and put some limits on what people could do. In 1958, I believe, in Manitoba we established an Independent Boundaries Commission and on the Boundaries Commission were three independent people. That Boundaries Commission, we might have some arguments about it over the years as to what we think of the boundaries. That Boundaries Commission has probably been a plus in the sense it has taken some of the suspicion out of the process, unlike B.C., where we had Gracie's finger. A number of years ago where we had–if we were in B.C., Armstrong's Point and Wolseley would end up over in Crescentwood or Fort Rouge. They cut the boundaries across rivers and stuff like that, so we can all agree that an independent boundaries commission is a good idea, served us well, worked well and perhaps there are some changes that are required there too and we could maybe look at those in the future.

But once we got into the '70s, the federal government brought in the new Elections Financing Act I believe it was '72 and, at that time, the first time we had public financing. We actually had people getting tax credits for donations to parties, and we also had a rebate system whereby if you got more than 10 or 15 percent of the vote, you got 50 percent of your expenses back, and in return for that concession we were forced to follow some rules.

This only makes sense. There were limits placed on how much parties and candidates could spend in campaigns, and there were other rules that had to be followed. The rules were there because we were talking about public money in the system. I think that we are now at just another stage in that system where we are tightening up, where we have to tighten up the rules on how that money is spent and basically establish a trail to follow the money so we know that it is being spent properly.

You know that is an inconvenience and something that we have to live with and some more complications and bookwork that we all will have to follow now, partly because of what comes out of this scandal with the Conservatives. It is interesting to note that federally, the Reform Party who were dead set against all this public financing, once they got elected, they were very, very reluctant to send those cheques back from Elections Canada. I think some of them may have and I think some of them may have kept them at the end of the day. So that is the price we have had.

Now, in the 1980s, we developed a provincial public financing scheme similar to the federal, at which time there were tight limits brought in on what we could do with the money. Once again, we are simply making some improvements in this area. But what we are going to see, I think, and I do not know how far this is going to go because when you look at countries–and I am told, I think, it was Jamaica a number of years ago brought in a public financing scheme that was so comprehensive that people would not put up election signs unless they were paid for them. I mean that is the extreme. That practically takes you to the silly season, but that is where you could ultimately, if you followed it through its natural progression, end up with public financing. So there is this tug of war in the system over whether we should proceed further in public financing, whether we should stay where we are, or whether we should as the Reform Party suggested back off further or completely. I think at the end of the day, the Reform Party decided to sacrifice its exuberance and early philosophical approach in favour of the cash.

But, having said that, if we are going to work within a system like this, then we have to take extra care with the way we conduct our affairs, because the public should not be financing campaigns in which there are all sorts of improprieties going on. Now the people involved in this scandal, I indicated that they went to the top of the Conservative Party. You know, Madam Speaker, it is even worse than that. We are talking about nothing short of cronyism in this party. When I saw the list of people that were involved in this scandal, it is as if these people do not trust anybody in their own party. Like it is the husband-and-wife team here. You have got Mr. Benson in a high position in the organization and signing cheques, I believe, and his wife is signing cheques. I mean talk about keeping it in the family; in fact, it is in the same bed.

An Honourable Member: It is all in the family.

* (1620)

Mr. Maloway: It is all in the family, the member for Brandon East says. Then we have Gord McFarlane being, I believe, the comptroller, and his wife is the official Tory lawyer. I mean, get a life. Can you guys not find anybody out there, other than husband-and-wife teams, to take all these top jobs? Conservative members, it does not give a very good signal to all these up and coming young Tories that are hoping to achieve positions of influence and power in the party. How can they have a good feeling for this when they see these top positions all being held by husband-and-wife teams? Not only that, but just friends of the Leader.

For example, did you know that when these people pick candidates, the qualifications seem to be, like, what the connection is directly to the Leader? They ran the Leader's, the Premier's (Mr. Filmon), barber/hairdresser against me last time. Right? They have the Premier's hunting partner in Rossmere, the Premier's dentist's wife in Fort Garry. That is another story. The official agent of the dentist's wife in Fort Garry is Gord McFarlane, whose brother is the Deputy Attorney General. And, who is the Attorney General? Gord is vetting the liquor licence applications, and who is the minister? I mean the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) just must shake his head because he has been in that party for centuries, a long time, and he has seen all of the skullduggery and no doubt participated in some of it years ago, so he would be a good barometer as to whether things have gotten worse or better.

I know back in the old days, the Spivak-Lyon fights. There was no picnic. These people were fighting each other tooth and nail every bit as tough as now, so they certainly know how the system works. To me, this is just the same thing that has been going on for years, but I doubt that in those days, in the Lyon government and the previous Tory governments, you had this cronyism that you do now with the husband-and-wife teams running the top positions in the party. I think it just points to the paranoia of the existing Leader, of the Premier, in this province.

I could go on for quite a long time here. I have only finished a few pages. The acting Whip is suggesting that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) wants to talk about this problem. I think I will save a little bit for another day. I hope to be around after the next election, so maybe there will be another occasion where I can complete my speech on this subject.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I, like the rest of my colleagues on this side, have listened to members opposite not just in this Chamber but for the past four or five months on this issue. Allow me to put on the record very clearly that I am mad, I am embarrassed, and I am sorry that some party members participated, in Judge Monnin's words, in a stupid, wooden-headed, dumb plot, or however else he might want to describe it.

That all took place, and I am mad about it, but I take some comfort at the same time that the sheer clumsiness of it, the sheer stupidity of people who have otherwise shown themselves to be adept business people, comptrollers, accountants, demonstrates beyond all proof necessary that the Conservative Party of Manitoba does not do these kinds of things.

This conduct is alien to us, or else how could you explain how stupid, how clumsily it was done as compared to the New Democrats, who only seven months ago wanted to make sure that a former colleague of ours, of mine, return to this Chamber one Harvey Smith in the municipal election. They only had one problem. He could not win that seat in the municipal council seat of Daniel McIntyre because, among other things, there was a popular Liberal councillor, Amaro Silva. But they knew how to do that.

In Daniel McIntyre, there is a large Filipino-Canadian community. They knew they had to split that vote, so they found one of their members in good standing who had, in fact, run for them, of Filipino background, and put him on the ballot, printed the signs for him in the same party colors, black and green, then proceeded to vote for Harvey Smith, then successfully succeeded to split the Filipino vote in Daniel McIntyre and did it successfully. And they do not even blush, because they do it all the time, and they do it successfully.

My party does not know how to do it. They demonstrated that very clearly. That, Madam Speaker, is vote rigging of the highest order and done very, very successfully. I compliment the hierarchy of the New Democrats in showing us how it should be done, if you want to engage in that kind of politics.

Now, Madam Speaker, does anybody doubt my word? Does somebody want to phone ex-Councillor Silva to see whether everything I have put on the record is not actually the way it occurred. They connived in the hierarchy of the New Democratic leadership and said they are going to get their former colleague of the Legislature back on the City Council. But they did their demographics. They looked at the constituency. They knew that Amaro Silva had proven himself to be a capable councillor and would not be defeated easily.

So then they came up with a scheme. They found a candidate to run as an independent, although the New Democrats printed their signs, the same colors even, black and green. In fact, the person who was the patsy for them, he was just paying off some past debts, because he was a prominent member of the New Democrats. He had run for the New Democrats before. Then the party callously disregarded him and instructed everybody to vote for Harvey Smith. That is how the Liberal councillor was defeated. Talk about callous use of an ethnic minority.

Now, just take away Filipino and substitute aboriginal. Talk about callous disregard for an ethnic minority. You hypocrites. Shame on you. You show us how it is done. You do it successfully. You do it successfully. That is the difference. That is the difference between you and us. The very concept of it is so alien to the Conservative Party that otherwise competent people demonstrated how clumsily, how stupidly they–[interjection]

Well, how else do you explain people who have been tremendously successful in business and other walks of life, how could they have handled it that way? And for that matter, on this issue, let me–with the sanctity of this Chamber, I want to be careful not to suggest anything of Justice Monnin, who, after all, has not experienced the political arena.

The idea of individuals contributing to more than one political party is not new. I sat in this Chamber and it always bothered me that a lot of the business community, people who have contributed to my party, to my own elections, for eight years contributed to Ed Schreyer's New Democratic government. We know that. There is, in fact, an unstated business policy among the business community, and there is nothing wrong with it. In terms of them contributing and playing a role in public affairs, there are many businesses that say that if we have $1,000 to give for politics, they will give 60 percent to the ruling party and 40 percent to the opposition party. That has been mighty tough on the Liberal Party lately. That has been kind of tough on the Liberal Party, except that the Liberal Party has that one great advantage. They are the God-given, meant-to-rule party of Canada most years, and aspiring judges and others will always be found to run for the candidates of their party, and their coffers do get amply replenished from time to time.

* (1630)

But what is immoral, what is unethical about a Bob Kozminski or an Arni Thorsteinson handing out some money for people of other parties? What is there? I had an insurance man who has since deceased, an insurance man, an agent in Stonewall, and he would not have minded me using it. He has since deceased, but I am going to be having my nomination meeting in Stonewall. He was the Liberal organizer. He was, in fact, a vice-president of the provincial Liberal Party, but he contributed to my campaign, at least five campaigns that I ran, while he was living. He would say: Harry, here is $50 or here is $100. You are doing a good job; I want you to keep on fighting. Is there something unethical about it? Is there something immoral about that? Of course there is nothing immoral.

So let us cut a little bit of the "we are holier than thou" attitude and like that. Let us at least acknowledge and put on the record that only seven or eight months ago in the last municipal election the most successful vote-rigging scheme ever perpetuated in the city of Winnipeg was carried out by the New Democratic Party.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is always a tough act to follow.

I wanted to make a few comments on Bill 17. I can understand why the members opposite are very sensitive on this matter and on this issue. Their party has left a black mark on democracy in our province. It amazes me in listening to this debate some of the defensiveness and some of the arguments for defence that they are coming up with.

When I look at what we are dealing with in Bill 17, the recommendations are trying to ensure that the kind of vote-rigging scheme that went on in the '95 election never comes to be again. I think Elections Manitoba–and their name has also been tarnished–now has to come up with recommendations that we see in Bill 17, or amendments to The Elections Act as we see in Bill 17, to try and reduce the likelihood that, if there was ever something like this again in the province of Manitoba in an election, they would be more effective in trying to deal with it.

So the amendments are there so that Elections Manitoba can more effectively get documents that would be required for an inquiry, so that they would have a longer period of time open to them. There would not be the same statute of limitations of limiting them if there was a question to occur again similar as in the '95 elections where allegations are made and there is a reasonable possibility to believe that there has been some kind of vote rigging or bribing or buying of an election as we have seen in this case.

There are more provisions for improvements in the auditing of financial records and ensuring that records are kept because, as we have seen in the Tory party, there must have been big holes in the files because records were there, records were lost, records were found, records were missing again. So we have improvements in the requirement to ensure that records are kept.

Then there is the whole area of ethics, the recommendations now that parties are going to have to come forward with policies for ethics, it is interesting to think that any kind of code of ethics could have stopped this. If a party such as the governing Conservative Party in Manitoba is so willing to step over The Elections Act in Manitoba, what is to lead us to believe that they are going to follow a simple party code of ethics or code of conduct? So those things may be put in place.

Some of the processes I think that could also be put in place would be to ensure that parties have information about what The Elections Act are given to candidates that are seeking nomination and candidates that are indeed nominated by their party. As we have seen since then, just in this sitting in the House, maybe these things occur somewhat innocently, somewhat without malice or intent of wrong doing, but people just do not know better, and that is often what ethics are about–are you going to make sure when there is a question that you find out what is actually in the law, or are you just going to assume that there is nothing wrong, for example, using the public lists of medical clients, chiropractor clients, in order to do fundraising for a party.

We can say that members opposite and their candidates who are nominees are doing this innocently and that they may not realize what they are doing. So in that sense, having political parties put some of these things out front, make sure that people who are running for nomination have the information. If those kinds of things are going to be in the code of conduct or the ethical codes, then that hopefully will help. But, as I said earlier, if the ruling political party in a government is willing to ignore a law that is a statutory law in a province, I would say that codes of conduct are going to be quite easy for them to ignore.

It is interesting when you become an MLA or you seek public office. We are just regular people. A lot of us have had jobs that are not very special. We are teachers, we are mechanics and machinists, we are lawyers, we are salespeople, we are farmers, we are nurses, regular people, and I do no think that we are expected to have any sort of abilities or expertise or any other higher ethical or moral standard than anyone else. Once we do become elected and we do seek office, there is an expectation by the public that we are going to rise to a standard of moral and ethical behaviour that is going to be an example. That is what is so disconcerting about this because when you talk to people, it is not just the fact that this vote-rigging scandal occurred, but it is the extent to try and cover it up. So at least come forward, and when there is a mistake to admit that, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has said, it is wrong-headed, it is stupid, it is clumsy. If that had been done at the beginning, a lot of expense and a lot of problems would have been dealt with. The question I have when I look at this is how could something like this in a provincial party with a long history of the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba, how could it go this far?

And you would have to wonder where did it first come from? In whose mind, in which group of people was this first concocted, or imagined or envisioned?

An Honourable Member: Allan Aitken

Ms. Cerilli: The minister for Lakeside can put that on the record, if he likes. When it comes to be known that it is not just a small minority group in a constituency, when it does go right to the top of the ruling party in power in a provincial government, that is also when it raises serious concerns. When the extent has been gone to to try and hide it and to shift the responsibility, when we look at the people who have had their careers ruined, who have had their names dragged through the mud on this, some of them must be sitting back know and scratching their heads, because when we come into the House every day, who is still here? The man in charge, the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The one who should be ultimately responsible has had everyone around him fall in order that he can still remain the head of the government and the head of his party. I am sure that that point is not being lost on many of the rank-and-file members of the Conservative Party.

The other thing that I want to mention that I think is really deplorable–and I listened to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) speak on the bill and a number of the adjectives that he used, of the distaste, the fact that a lot of us were not even planning on speaking on this bill because a lot of us realized that this is making people more and more cynical about politics all the time.

* (1640)

But I want to mention the fact that this was an attempt to take advantage of aboriginal people, who are often feeling very disenfranchised in the electoral system as it is–the demonstrations that go on across the province by aboriginal people who are trying to have some type of voice and influence, the political decision making that goes on, yet again in the Chamber today we heard the fact that on another proposal on resource extraction, that aboriginal people are not at the table. They are not being consulted. So it speaks to the attitude by the governing party to aboriginal people, and do not forget it was the Minister of Northern Affairs who at one time said: people in the North and aboriginal communities, they do not vote right. So to think that this was an attempt to manipulate aboriginal people, I think that is the other thing that is really galling and really disturbing and distasteful about this.

When people read about this type of thing in the paper and the media, I think it makes it more difficult for any party to try and recruit volunteers to take on those important positions, like being an official agent for a constituency campaign, when they look at the fact that people surrounding the Premier, some of whom are in volunteer positions in their party, have had to have their names disputed, and then the Premier, the one who should be responsible, is left, and I think that he may feel, the Premier may feel that he has gotten away with this.

I have a number of other issues, how, as members on our side of the House have also talked about, this is part of a trend, that it is not an isolated incident. But, Madam Speaker, I will just close by saying that in this day and age I think that we have gotten away from election campaigns and politics being about trying to have debate with dignity and about influencing people to cast their ballot based on a persuasive argument and to vote for policies that are going to be in the best interests of all people. I hope that with these new amendments, that the next election, the coming election in 1999, is going to be a fair election, and it is going to be fought on the basis of policy. Thank you.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I rise to close debate on Bill 17. I just want to put on the record that the allegations of the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) are absolutely ridiculous and untrue. I would challenge him to repeat them outside the Chamber which I think would be highly unlikely, and with those few remarks we are going to pass Bill 17 and, in fact, give it Royal Assent. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. The Lieutenant Governor will be arriving shortly to give Royal Assent to the bill.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): I look to my colleagues opposite. Do they want a few minutes to allow for the Lieutenant Governor to arrive, or would they like to proceed into Private Members? He should be available in about three or four minutes, given the time that he indicated. So we may just wait his arrival then, Madam Speaker.

An Honourable Member: Recess.

Madam Speaker: Is there agreement? [agreed]

________

Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Garry Clark): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

Madam Speaker: May it please Your Honour:

The Legislative Assembly, at its present session, passed a bill, which in the name of the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which bill I respectfully request Your Honour's assent:

Bill 17–The Elections Amendment and Elections Finances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des campagnes électorales.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I look to the opposition benches if there is a will to call it six o'clock.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Praznik: No. Then, Madam Speaker, is there a will to call it five o'clock for private members' hour?

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? [agreed]

The hour being 5 p.m., private members' hour.