Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just on House business, I am looking to the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) just so he is aware of the point I make. I would like to–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain all members want to hear what the order of House business will be today, and I am experiencing great difficulty hearing it.

Mr. Praznik: By way of information for the House, on Thursday, as has been announced, it will be budget day, and the House will be sitting at 1:30. The budget will be delivered following Question Period.

As we examine our rules, I think there is some issue as to whether or not on that particular day the House would sit in the morning. I think if you would canvass the House in the interests of giving clarity to that, you will find that there is agreement in the House to confirm that the Assembly will be sitting on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. as a scheduled sitting. At that time, it is the government's intention to bring forward the resolution which appears on the Order Paper with respect to rules for the election of a Speaker in subsequent sessions or subsequent legislatures. So, first of all, I think if you canvass the House, that if there is any defect in our rules it will be dealt with by unanimous consent.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to sit on Thursday morning as well as the regular 1:30 p.m. sitting on Thursday–10 a.m.? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could call for introduction of second reading the bills as they appear on the Order Paper. That would be Bills 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 15. Then I believe you will find that there would be unanimous consent to allow for the report stage for Bill 17.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 4, The Law Fees Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les frais judiciaires et modifications corrJ latives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Toews: On October 22, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Ontario regulation prescribing a fee structure for the probating of estates was unconstitutional. The unconstitutional aspect of the Ontario probate fee, according to the decision of the court, was that it was located in a regulation rather than a statute enacted by the Legislature. Although the Supreme Court's decision dealt solely with Ontario's probate fees, the decision has potential application in jurisdictions across Canada where probate fees are similarly structured. The legislatures of Ontario, Newfoundland and New Brunswick have all responded to the Supreme Court's decision by enacting appropriate remedial legislation. It is expected that other jurisdictions will soon follow suit.

Manitoba's probate fees are significantly lower than those in Ontario. They are roughly 40 percent of those charged in that province. However, the graduated structure of Manitoba's fee is similar to the graduated structure in Ontario, and it is, in part, this aspect of Ontario's fee which led the Supreme Court to its conclusion. The result has been uncertainty about the constitutional status of Manitoba's probate fee.

The purpose of this bill, Madam Speaker, is to bring certainty back to Manitoba's probate practice by moving the probate fee from its current place in a regulation to a statute. The bill will have no impact on the actual probate charges being collected, which will continue at exactly the same levels as under the existing fee structure. The probate fee is currently found in the law fees regulation which was made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council pursuant to powers vested in him under The Law Fees Act. With this bill the probate fee will be removed from the regulation to the act. The act will correspondingly be named The Law Fees and Probate Charge Act.

I would like to make it abundantly clear that this is a change in form only and that it will have no impact on existing or past probate practice in Manitoba. Probate fees were charged on a graduated scale in Manitoba as early as the 1880s and by regulation since 1959. This bill will ensure that those fees that were calculated, paid, and collected under those regulations will be validated constitutionally in a manner consistent with the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to add that the probate fee structure has been administered, amended, and enforced in good faith by governments of all stripes in this province. With this bill, this government is responding directly to the uncertainties that have been caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. This bill will ensure that the revenues generated in the past are protected, and that existing probate practices continue. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.

* (1440)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier et modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, this particular legislation will address a number of important issues, one of course being the drinking-and-driving, driving-while-disqualified countermeasures for operators of off-road vehicles. I want to in particular at this time thank the former Minister of Highways and Transportation, who did a great deal of work in bringing this bill to the stage where I, as the new Minister of Highways, am able to introduce it here today. I know it was an issue in which he felt very, very strongly, and I want to thank him for his excellent work. I am very honoured to have this piece of legislation here today.

Madam Speaker, these particular provisions do a number of things. They will add a new element to our government's highly successful drinking-and-driving and driving-while-disqualified countermeasures strategy. In 1989, this administration introduced some of the toughest laws in Canada against motorists who drink and drive. Alcohol- and traffic-related fatalities decreased significantly following introduction of those countermeasures. In fact, I dare say that today there are many Manitobans who, if it had not been for the actions of this government, would not be alive today.

In 1997, Manitoba saw a dramatic rise in snowmobile fatalities, almost doubling the average rate from the previous five years. We saw a growth in the rate of fatalities from 7 to 13. Madam Speaker, as an MLA who represents an eastern Manitoba constituency with a lot of snowmobile clubs and a rather very extensive snowmobile network where some of these fatalities occurred, I know all too well just how dangerous it can be to be operating a snowmobile while impaired.

What is interesting, Madam Speaker, of that increase in fatalities, clearly in 65 percent of those collisions, not just the fatalities, but in collisions, involving off-road vehicles and snowmobiles, alcohol was a factor. Sixty-five percent. A working group was convened by the previous minister to look at problems, at this particular problem. It included representatives of the Department of Highways, the Department of Justice, the Department of Natural Resources, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Snowman, which is the umbrella organization representing snowmobile clubs across our province.

The second initiative to be dealt with under this legislation is the off-road maintenance machines. This is a new subcategory of off-road vehicles which is now being proposed to be introduced through this legislation. Off-road maintenance machines are specialized maintenance vehicles used by snowmobile clubs and ski resorts to groom trails and slopes, similar type implements of husbandry, and special mobile machines that currently exist under the act. Neither of these categories of vehicles is required to be registered or insured, but all off-road vehicles are. Off-road maintenance machines are being recognized as a separate category of off-road vehicle in order to establish exemption from registration. The requirement for liability insurance will be maintained. Registration exemption will provide a small financial benefit to nonprofit snowmobile clubs.

The third issue being dealt with by this legislation, Madam Speaker, is liability protection regarding off-road vehicle by-law approval. New provisions are being proposed to ensure that the Minister of Highways does not assume undue liability as a result of approval of off-road vehicle by-laws by a municipality.

Municipalities submitting off-road vehicle by-laws to the department seeking approval to permit mixed snowmobile and motor vehicle traffic on highways are the subject of this particular section of the act. Municipalities are also protected from liability in the event of an accident involving an off-road vehicle. The Minister of Highways is not protected from any liability on these roads where he is not the traffic authority. Legal advice to the department has indicated that the minister's approval of off-road vehicle by-laws might be seen as a link to responsibility for all off-road vehicle activity under the by-law. This new provision will provide the minister with liability protection in the event of an off-road vehicle accident or an off-road vehicle route that was approved at the request of a municipality. Proposed amendments also limit the requirement for ministerial approval of off-road vehicle by-laws to only those that affect provincial highways and roads. This of course extends or gives greater authority to municipalities for roads within their jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, across our province we have seen a greater growth in the snowmobile industry, the sport of snowmobiling. This particular legislation ensures that those who partake of that sport can travel safely on those trails, hopefully without fear of encountering a fellow snowmobiler or off-road vehicle driver who is under the influence of alcohol and poses a threat to them. As well, it I think gives greater ability to see appropriate rules made by municipalities to allow for off-road vehicles to use roads at appropriate times of the year in appropriate ways without putting undue liability on the minister and consequently the taxpayer. I would hope that members of the Assembly see fit to give passage to this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be now adjourned.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I would move, again seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 6, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of the House.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, this is the second of the two bills being introduced by this department in this session. It addresses a variety of housekeeping amendments required to be made to The Highway Traffic Act to deal with a number of particular issues that have come up over the last while.

The first one, Madam Speaker, is the use of farm truck by emergency medical responders. The amendments being proposed through this act will allow farm trucks to be used by a farmer in the course of his or her duties as a volunteer firefighter or emergency medical responder and receive compensation for that use. Currently, farm trucks are not permitted to be used for emergency response activities, as they are not recognized as a permitted use under The Highway Traffic Act for a farm vehicle. As use is not prescribed, vehicle insurance is invalid if an accident occurs while the vehicle is used for emergency response activity. The truck must be reregistered in a different class, usually at a higher cost to the farmer.

* (1450)

Emergency responders play a critical role in Manitoba's rural communities. Additional costs, of course, discourage their continued involvement. This government supports the use of farm trucks by volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders, and I think that the passage of this amendment will, I think, send a signal to those individuals who come forward to volunteer, that they will not be inconvenienced by their service to their community.

The second area, Madam Speaker, is the increased speed of operation for tractors. Amendments proposed here are being made at the request of the farm community to increase the maximum speed of operation of farm tractors on a highway. Currently, The Highway Traffic Act restricts tractors to 40 kilometres per hour. This was not an issue until recently as tractors manufactured in North America were designed to travel only at a top speed of 40 kilometres an hour.

An Honourable Member: Then agriculture went into high gear.

Mr. Praznik: High-speed tractors imported from Europe in that high gear, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) states, as agriculture is moving ahead in our province–thanks to his foresight, thanks to his foresight–are becoming increasingly popular with our farm community. These tractors are engineered to truck standards, and they operate at speeds of up to 70 kilometres per hour.

These amendments, if accepted by the Assembly, will harmonize speed of operation for all types of agricultural equipment. Implements of husbandry currently are permitted to operate at a maximum speed of 70 kilometres an hour. Higher speed of operation allows for greater efficiency of that particular tractor in the farm operation, and given the fact that the original restriction at 40 kilometres was, I suspect, designed around the maximum speed of tractors, this is an appropriate time, I believe, to be raising that, given the engineering and better vehicles, tractors, that are now available in the marketplace for Manitoba farmers.

The third area of amendment in this act, Madam Speaker, is with respect to prohibited radio receiving sets. This amendment will expand the range of radio frequencies identified for police use or emergency response use. The Winnipeg Police Service has installed a new trunk radio system. The frequency bands of this new system are not now currently identified in The Highway Traffic Act. The Highway Traffic Act prohibits equipping a vehicle with a radio capable of receiving police emergency response transmissions within specified ranges. Exception is provided for persons such as ham radio operators, taxi drivers, courier companies, et cetera. The intent is to prevent persons from using these transmissions to aid them in committing a criminal act or interfering with emergency responses. New provisions will also allow for confiscation of radios when charges are laid and for the Department of Justice to determine if the radio is to be forfeited or returned. Madam Speaker, these amendments were requested, I understand, by the City of Winnipeg police department.

The fourth area of amendment is the authority by the minister to waive fees. Provisions proposed in this legislation will provide the authority for the Minister of Highways to waive fees at his or her discretion. This authority, of course, will be delegated to department administrators who are responsible for programs that charge fees for services. The registrar of motor vehicles has historically waived fees on the basis of longstanding policy, for example, temporary registration fees during emergency situations such as the flood. So, in 1997, there were a whole host of fees that the law required to be charged that were waived as a matter of departmental policy, but, quite frankly, the authority to do so did not exist. I do not think anyone in the province would argue against the use of that decision made within the department to waive those fees, but I think it is important that we bring our law up to date to allow for it.

As well, last year, approval in principle was granted by cabinet to the department to consider the waiving of fees for replacement driver's licences for victims of crime. This is also another area that I think would be covered by these amendments. Our legal counsel, of course, has advised that such authority should be clearly established under The Highway Traffic Act. New provision based on similar waiver authorities provided under The Vital Statistics Act and The Financial Administration Act are the models for the amendments being proposed here today.

The fifth area is there are several amendments being introduced to address a variety of motor carrier issues. Amendments are being made to clarify types of sanctions and combinations of sanctions that may be imposed on errant mode of carriers following hearings by both the department and the Motor Transport Board. The intent is to ensure carriers understand implications of failing to comply with requirements of The Highway Traffic Act and regulations by clearly identifying sanctions that may be imposed following a hearing. Sanctions identified reflect long-standing department and Transport Board practice. This will not result in new sanctions being imposed, just ensuring that what has become practice of the board is in fact fully in compliance with the act. Also, new provisions are being proposed to allow motor carriers to appeal show-cause decisions to the Motor Transport Board. The act will provide for an independent review of the department's sanctioning of motor carriers.

The sixth area is for co-drivers and hours of service log book requirements. Amendments will clarify the application of hours of service log book requirements to co-drivers of public service vehicles and commercial trucks. The change is precipitated by a court ruling. The Highway Traffic Act being amended to clearly identify or indicate co-driver obligations regarding hours of service log books, and requirements for immediate production on request of a peace officer, I believe, are important given that recent ruling. This will ensure consistency and avoid any possible misinterpretation in the future.

The seventh area is the registrar's authority to maintain motor carrier records and conduct hearings. Amendments will, if passed, move responsibility for motor carrier record keeping and show-cause hearings from the registrar of motor vehicles to the Minister of Highways, the change precipitated by an organizational restructuring within the department. The department has created a new division to serve the needs of the trucking industry. Motor carrier issues now dealt with by a division of transports are now dealt with by the division of Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services. The minister will delegate responsibility for motor carrier record keeping and show-cause hearings to the director of transport safety and regulations. The problem, as I have indicated the ability to restructure the department, was really impeded by the current act because it made a specific delegation. By changing that delegation or that authority to the minister, it can be delegated to whomever the appropriate officials are within the department however that department is organized at a given time. So there is much more flexibility for the department to organize itself to better suit the needs of its client base and the people of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, these are a number of amendments to The Highway Traffic Act, and I hope that the House will see fit to give them passage.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be now adjourned.

Hon. Shirley Render (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 9, The Securities Amendment and Commodity Futures and Consequential Amendments Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières et la Loi sur les contrats à terme de marchandises et apportant des modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mrs. Render: In the past number of years this government has established a number of special operating agencies. The Manitoba Securities Commission became a special operating agency effective April 1, 1999. It is the fourth special operating agency in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, joining the Vital Statistics agency, the Companies Office and the Property Registry.

Bill 9, Madam Speaker, consists of technical amendments to The Securities Act and The Commodity Futures Act related to the change in status for the commission. Under The Financial Administration Act, all funds received by government agencies must be paid into the Consolidated Fund; however, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act specifically overrides these provisions and directs the SOA funds to be deposited in trust within the Consolidated Fund, but this act does not override one section of The Securities Act that directs funds to be payable into the Consolidated Fund.

* (1500)

This section of The Securities Act will be repealed. In addition, provisions of The Securities Act and The Commodity Futures Act provide for refunds to be paid from the Consolidated Fund, at the direction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer). In Bill 9, these refund provisions will be amended to allow the director of the special operating agency to direct refunds from the trust account within the Consolidated Fund account.

Madam Speaker, as the Manitoba Securities Commission became a special operating agency on April 1, 1999, the provisions of Bill 9 are to be retroactive to that date.

Special operating agency status for the Manitoba Securities Commission will provide the commission with greater flexibility of operation to better enable it to maintain and expand its role in the protection of Manitoba investors in ensuring that the securities market is fair, efficient and transparent. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I move that debate be now adjourned.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Flin Flon, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be now adjourned.

Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives (Nunavut)), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce for second reading Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999. The amendments to The Crown Lands Act, The Income Tax Act, The Real Property Act, The Registry Act and The Water Rights Act are necessary to ensure that the legislative arrangements previously in place with the Northwest Territories are also in effect for the newly established territory of Nunavut.

All the laws of the Northwest Territories are being duplicated for Nunavut. This amendment simply ensures that the necessary revisions to Manitoba statutes are in place. Manitoba congratulates the people of Nunavut for the creation of their territory and expresses its ongoing commitment to work with them as another government. This includes ensuring that the needs of its residents are fully addressed in the law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, we are proposing to allow the board to authorize the payout of funds in cases where conditions for cemetery licensing no longer exists. This is an amendment of some importance for both the industry and its customers. Customers expect and, in some cases, are entitled by contract to have perpetual care funds placed in an irrevocable trust. The amendment to the act will allow the board to alter that obligation in the public interest. At the same time, it will enable the board to attach very strict conditions on the use of the fund and the income.

* (1510)

Madam Speaker, this bill will allow the disbursement of funds that are now held in trust at some administrative cost in industry for no useful purpose. The amendment will allow the board to authorize the disbursement of funds paid into trust for a cemetery that never went into operation. In addition, cemeteries that change status to nonprofit organizations will be allowed to use perpetual care funds and the interest thereon consistent with their purpose and only under conditions allowed by the board.

Madam Speaker, these amendments will provide greater consumer protection and at the same time are sensitive to the needs of the marketplace. For these reasons, they are in the interest of the public.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be now adjourned.

* * *

Madam Speaker: Report stage–is there leave of the House to proceed to report stage on Bill 17?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded again by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), a fine friend to all, that 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, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.

* * *

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if you could please call for continuation of debate on third reading, Bill 2, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I do know that we have a few more comments. Our Leader may wish to add a couple of comments, as well, on this, but what I did want to do is add to some of the comments that were made earlier on and in particular point out that we in this caucus respect the independent nature of the boundaries report. While there were some improvements, certainly as we saw them from some of the original maps, to the credit of the Boundaries Commission, I think it is important to put on the record our concern about the issue of representation, particularly in northern Manitoba.

I want to stress that we do not expect necessarily the Boundaries Commission to be able to deal with this problem in its entirety, although this is the second time we have had a boundaries commission in Manitoba that has had the ability to go to the 25 percent variation. While certainly compared to the last set of boundaries there has been some movement towards that, I would point out that we are still left with the situation whereby there is, I believe, a need for further reflection on the kinds of barriers that we referenced earlier on in the debate.

I want to stress that we are concerned about the fact that there is a real reason why the 25 percent is in place. I think it is unfortunate in a way that the wording is placed in such a way as to allow some flexibility. Obviously, it is difficult to require that boundaries be an exact percentage in terms of variation. I state that because, obviously, communities do not necessarily add up to a nice even number, so there is some intention in the act of allowing for that flexibility. But I do not believe it was the intent of the act when it was originally passed by this Legislature to have 25 percent in place, and then have the Boundaries Commission ignore that. The Boundaries Commission in 1989 did that because of fear of the Supreme Court. They feared there would be difficulty related to the Charter of Rights, and I want to stress they were wrong–

An Honourable Member: They were wrong.

Mr. Ashton: They were wrong at that time, and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is certainly aware of this. The Supreme Court, I believe, in 1992, in a ruling involved Saskatchewan–involving Saskatchewan, by the way, where there is a much higher variation of population for the northern seats–ruled that that was not only appropriate under the Charter but was quite legitimate because when one deals with the parliamentary system one is reflecting a number of key factors. That is, in our system, the British parliamentary system, based as it is on the first-past-the-post constituency system. We are not a proportional representation system; we are not a party list system. Primarily we are based in Manitoba on a system that recognizes that people in the constituency elect an MLA to represent their constituency. That is fundamental, and I will fight for that.

Coming from northern Manitoba, believe you me, that is important. I think it is absolutely critical that people be able to elect an MLA that is in a position of representing them in this Legislature. I want to stress that that is critical to the functioning of our system. It is particularly important, I would suggest, in rural and northern Manitoba. I say rural Manitoba as well, because I think that, if one reflects on the situation, in Winnipeg there are certainly communities of interest–and I certainly respect those communities of interest–but there are how many MLAs in the city?

An Honourable Member: Thirty-one.

Mr. Ashton: Thirty-one, and I appreciate my colleague from the city pointing that out–31 members. I often say this in my own constituency [interjection] Well, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says: well, that is the population. Obviously, Winnipeg is the largest area by population in the city, so it has the largest number of seats. If the member for Inkster bears with me, he will see my point here. My point is if you live in a constituency in Winnipeg and your MLA does not represent you, you have got 30 other MLAs that are going to represent you, and I respect that. But, if you are in rural Manitoba, apart from the city of Brandon, where you have two MLAs–I must admit Brandon has played that very well over the years, sort of one in opposition, one in government. There was a brief time when both were in government, but that is another story and hope springs eternal. [interjection] Henry was not around for very long, but Henry did bring a different style here with his convertible Mercedes, oh, yes, and a very flamboyant life style, very fine man. I have a lot of respect for him, but I was saying that, outside of Brandon, every other rural and northern area, you have one representative–Thompson, The Pas, Flin Flon, or whether it be in Gladstone, whether it be Springfield, Lakeside, Gimli. So, if you are living in Gimli, either your MLA does the job for you or that is it. Nobody else is going to necessarily represent the community in the same way.

I compare that to Winnipeg where you have 31 MLAs. [interjection] It is the same thing in Lakeside. The point is, you see the importance of representation right there. Just the simple fact that we represent entire communities. I represent and I may be the MLA for Thompson, but that is a bit of a misnomer. In many ways I should be the representative for Thompson, and if you want to get like the House of Commons, I have often suggested that you might call that Thompson/Bayline because I represent the bayline communities of Thicket Portage, Wabowden, Pikwitonei and Ilford, but, of course, I would not want to leave out Nelson House and Split Lake and York Landing. I do not know if you could extend it that distance, but it really is the MLA for Thompson's area, for the Thompson region, and I think that is something that has to be reflected.

When we are electing MLAs, your first responsibility, I believe, is still to represent your constituents in this Legislature. I have often said to my constituents that I have been fortunate, certainly, to play a number of roles in this House, most recently as opposition House leader. But as far as I am concerned, the first commitment I made when I was first elected was to my constituents. It was to put Thompson first, and it is still my top priority. That, I stress again, has a base in the electoral system itself in the sense that we do not elect people from a party list. There are many countries where you pick from a party list. There are systems of proportional representation where essentially that happens.

In this House, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is elected by the people of Inkster. He represents Inkster, period. He has wider responsibilities, obviously, elected as a Liberal. By the way, I often say too in my own constituency that I not only represent the people who voted for me, I make a point of representing everybody in my constituency, Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, and the many people who do not vote, and I would assume–

* (1520)

An Honourable Member: That is so obvious. I do not think anybody needs to say that. Is it not automatic?

Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister says: That is obvious. Do you not automatically do that?

You know, I want to tell about a circumstance I ran into to the minister, because this sort of sums it up, the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mrs. McIntosh). I was at–[interjection] Well, she obviously does not talk to some of the people I have talked to.

I was at the meeting of the Port of Churchill Development Board, which had representation from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. One of the MLAs from Alberta, and it is not hard to pick which party the person was from, because in those days I think there were two opposition members. No, he was a Conservative. He said to me: you know what really bugs me, he says, is when right after the election the first person in my office, you can guarantee it is somebody who did not vote for me. I just sort of say to myself–he told me, he said: I feel like kicking the guy out of my office. It is like, you know, you do not vote for me and then a couple of weeks later you show up in my office and you want help.

Now, I kind of looked at that and I sort of said to him, I said, well, you know, I consider it the ultimate compliment when someone comes to me that did not vote for me but respects the fact I represent the constituency as MLA for Thompson, and I respect the fact that whether they voted for me or did not vote or whoever they voted for, if they are there with a problem, I am there to help them. I am the MLA for Thompson, not just the MLA for people who happened to vote NDP in Thompson. I say that to the minister because it may sound obvious to her, but I think by her actions we can demonstrate quite clearly that if we take it seriously that we represent everyone, it makes a real difference.

I know other members in the House follow the same thing. I am sure the members for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) or Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) or the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) do the same thing.

An Honourable Member: Which member for Wellington?

Mr. Ashton: They do the same thing. I am talking about existing boundaries. I remind the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that we do not have the new boundaries yet.

An Honourable Member: And we will though.

Mr. Ashton: And we will fairly soon, and I am sure that will be a very interesting household discussion.

An Honourable Member: The cheque is in the mail.

Mr. Ashton: We will not get into that.

The fact is we are a constituency-based system, and I want to stress in Canada why, and I appreciate the argument sometimes that will come about proportional representation in other systems of government. But you know, I want to suggest that our system of government is particularly good for rural and northern areas, because I do not know how Thompson would fit in any other system. I do not know how the North would. We are four MLAs, four MLAs out of 57. You turn it up the other way, 53 MLAs from the rest of the province. We are four.

Now, even with rural Manitoba, rural Manitoba, now there are 31 city MLAs, so you have a situation, you have 26 from rural and northern Manitoba, so you have 22 from rural Manitoba. You are in a position where you do not have that representation in other systems. But what we assure by a constituency-based system is that people's voices will be heard, not just the party's voices, but the voices of the people living in constituencies all across this province.

I just point to the fact one of the tremendous benefits we have in Canada I believe comes from the party system itself–medicare. Medicare has not happened in the United States with their system, even though polls consistently show that people want medicare in the same way we have it in Canada, universal health care insurance, but it happened here because you had the CCF in Saskatchewan, the NDP in 1962 in Saskatchewan. You had movements nationally, first in the Diefenbaker government and then the Pearson government. You know the party system is the strength of what we are dealing with. Bottom line though is we are a constituency-based system. That is why we need to deal with some of the issues that were raised in this debate. I want to put them on the record again, just briefly in summing up, because I know our leader has a couple of comments–or in fact I believe I may be the final speaker from our side, because I know he made a number of comments.

I want to stress again that for effective representation to work, it requires a number of things. One is we need to ensure that the people of this province have reasonable access to their MLAs and vice versa. I note for those who contributed in the debate, and I will not mention them by name–

An Honourable Member: That is okay.

Mr. Ashton: Okay, I will mention the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). But you know I have four communities that do not have roads. Many of the people in those communities do not have phones. Once the rates go up in the next couple of years, those few who have phones will no longer have phones. You cannot even begin to think–those who have not travelled extensively in remote northern communities–the difficulty. It is very easy to say, well, we just set up better constituency allowances, but you know there is only one MLA for Rupertsland, and there are a heck of a lot of communities. Between being an MLA in this Legislature and representing those communities, it is very difficult if not impossible physically to do it, but he does. He tries hard; he works hard. What I am saying is the variation we have that is put in place is to reflect that.

By the way, I want to be fair to the many rural members on that side. A lot of members in this House do not realize the amount of travelling back and forth and travelling within constituencies that is involved. I look at some of the people in the House who have been through that. The members from Brandon just access their constituency travelling a couple of hours back and forth, but some of the other constituencies that people do not think about, the Emerson constituency for example, Dauphin, Swan River, Interlake. How many communities does the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) represent? [interjection] Eight, ten, eleven. You know what happens? When we draw the boundaries, we do not do them in logical ways. I have often said we should have a Highway 6 constituency, because I actually travel through Highway 6–one end of the MLA for Interlake's riding–probably as much as he does. It is crazy. You know I spend more time in Ashern when I am driving back and forth to Thompson than I do in communities in my own constituency. But we tend to do it in other ways.

The point is the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), not only have come to the point where they have to fork out money from their own bank account to serve their constituents, but you compare what they are going through. The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), and I know there are many members in this House who spend a lot of time travelling back and forth.

I say to members, if you have any question about the difficulty of representing rural and northern constituencies to urban members, you know, think of the amount of downtime you have as an urban MLA. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says it takes him 25 minutes to drive back to his constituency. I do not know what route he takes or what kind of car he drives, but I–[interjection] Well, I do not know. I know where the member's constituency does start, and I am wondering about that 25 minutes. I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) who is a former and soon-to-be policeman–

An Honourable Member: I can get there in 10 minutes.

Mr. Ashton: –can get there in 10 minutes, but I do not want to touch that. Maybe he gets a police escort when he goes back to his constituency. But think about the amount of downtime you have. When I travel back and forth to Thompson, I drive back and forth, nine hours on the road. You know even the cellphone corridor lasts for about an hour, hour and a half. For nine hours you are in your car. You have nothing you can do as an MLA other than sit, watch the road go by, think. It is actually quite an enjoyable experience at times, and a way to get away from it all. Believe you me, by the time you are up at Devils Lake, you are away from it all.

But you are still not accessing constituents. I find it is very difficult, even returning phone calls, when I have to stop at every pay phone, Devils Lake, Ponton, Grand Rapids, just to catch up on various messages.

What I want to stress is, that is why you have this variation. That is why you have this variation in virtually every jurisdiction in Canada you have a representation of that margin, the 10 percent or the 25 percent. It is something that has been supported now in the Supreme Court. It is legal, legitimate, but it is unfortunate that this Boundaries Commission chose to only partially implement that.

I think it is important to put on the record the experience of this round of boundary discussions because I want to suggest that next time around we can avoid this problem. Number one, I want to stress we want to see a change in the composition of the Boundaries Commission. It is not acceptable, I think, given this experience, to have representatives on that commission who are fine people but are from the city of Winnipeg only. I would suggest we need to look at rural representation, perhaps the president of Brandon University. There are various different ways we can look at it.

We need northern representation. I want to stress that because that can be done before the next boundaries. I would hope to see all-party support in this House for accomplishing that. I would suggest we could look at keeping the existing composition and adding two more people. That has been discussed.

* (1530)

I do not know whether the Minister responsible for MPIC's (Mrs. McIntosh) concern is about that, but I would say most rural people, most northern people, would feel a heck of a lot more comfortable about the fairness if you had a rural and a northern representative. I look to the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae)–

An Honourable Member: You should have a rural MLA like Jim Downey.

Mr. Ashton: Well, yes, Jim Downey on the Boundaries Commission. The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) has got a career ahead of him in terms of ethics. We look forward to his reincarnation.

An Honourable Member: Drawing up ethics rules.

Mr. Ashton: Ethics rules. I have also offered to introduce the member for Arthur-Virden to Jules Benson just in case he does not know what he looks like, but that is another story.

Anyway, I want to talk in all seriousness about this because could we not agree, consensus basis–and I say to the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mrs. McIntosh) that it is fair to have rural and northern representation on the boundaries. In the end, bottom line is, I think the minister actually agrees with me. I am surprised here she is not disagreeing with that proposal.

Number two, I think what we have to do in terms of the margins that are in place, we have to look at amendments to the act that will require–not make it optional but make it a requirement of the Boundaries Commission to apply those margins in rural and in northern Manitoba. I want to stress that in the first round the Boundaries Commission actually had said that they had no intention of even following that, not even close.

An Honourable Member: Good for them.

Mr. Ashton: The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says good for them. He speaks safely tucked inside the Perimeter against rural and northern Manitoba being able to have the full access to representation that it requires.

It is interesting, the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mrs. McIntosh), because what she is missing here is this time around the Boundaries Commission initially said no to that, and the revised map reflected a partial element of that, but the bottom line here is this is an independent commission. What we want to do next time around is make sure that it is more reflective of the province. I would hope, by the way, that would lead to another thing which would be not just reflecting the province but travelling.

I think it is really unfortunate that this Boundaries Commission did not travel to aboriginal communities. We want to see that changed. I think there have to be some serious questions asked about the accuracy of census figures in a lot of areas of the provinces. That has to be changed. I think fundamentally we have to ensure that the next Boundaries Commission does not have to wait for public hearings before it actually decides that it is going to apply even partially the elements of the act that are in place for the 25 percent in the North and the 10 percent in rural Manitoba. I would suggest that on an all-party basis we make sure next time that we have an act that says not "they shall." You do not have to be a lawyer to understand that "shall" does not mean a heck of a lot, but "may" in this case–pardon me, "may" does not mean a heck of a lot and "shall" does.

If we have some element in there, and there may be some wording that can allow for the fact it is very hard to make boundaries the exact element, but the intent was clear. The intent was to go to the 25 percent as close as is practicable, and that was not followed, and it is only partially followed in these boundaries. That is why a number of us have spoken from northern Manitoba. That is why a number of other MLAs have spoken. I commend our Leader, by the way. I am always careful when I talk about Perimeteritis because we have a lot of friends in rural and northern Manitoba who live inside the city of Winnipeg. We have a lot of friends in this Chamber in all parties who respect and reflect our views. [interjection] Well, I will not get into the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) comments because I hope that he will become a friend too of the North by travelling to northern Manitoba. I know he has travelled before, but actually asking people in northern Manitoba what they think about the 25 percent and the five northern seats because I can tell you–[interjection] I invite the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mrs. McIntosh) to come up as well. We look forward to that. I certainly welcome her to come up and ask that question because I can tell you, my area, it is pretty well unanimous. At the hearings, we had a cross-section of the community. In fact, the returning officer is a very well respected person in our constituency, certainly not a New Democrat. She is someone who said, as a returning officer, five northern seats make sense.

So, I conclude then by saying we have to change the way we deal with boundaries in the future. Obviously we would have liked to have seen some better elements in this report, but we respect the fact it is an independent process. That is why certainly I will be supporting the boundaries. But, in supporting it, I want to stress that I am supporting the element of its independence. I am not totally happy with the end results, but respecting that, I am working on next time, and I hope all members, because I think we have a consensus in this House–[interjection] Well, okay, apart from the member for Inkster, perhaps, but we have a relative consensus, and I still have hope for the member for Inkster. I would suggest next time around, let us do it properly. Let us make sure the North has better representation, the representation it is entitled to. Let us make sure we are committed to fairness for rural Manitoba. Yes, we can have fair representation for all Manitobans. [interjection] I am not going to get into that. We will not get into who might be what representative. We have not passed the new boundaries yet, but I actually think we can do that now. Then we can start that debate. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it is somewhat appropriate, last time in second reading I spoke and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) followed and addressed some of my points. Now, being third reading, I guess I might get the final say, at least between the two of us, on the record, between the member for Thompson.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do want to be very, very clear on it. I personally, and would advocate from within our party, would oppose any sort of a change from a "may" to a "shall" on the 25 percent variance. So it is something which the member for Thompson has not enlightened me to the degree to have changed my opinion.

One of the things, and I checked with the dean of the Chamber about seniority inside the Chamber. If we take a look at the six most senior individuals inside this Chamber, it is the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). These are almost all rural MLAs. Now the turnover within the city of Winnipeg, whether by option or by no choice, would imply that rural MLAs do have some stability inside this Chamber. But, having said that, I want to emphasize, if you want good quality representation, what you have to do is ensure that the resources are there.

That is why, if we go back to '88, we will see that the Liberal Party as the official opposition enhanced greatly the opportunities for all MLAs, in particular rural MLAs, in ensuring that good quality representation would be there. We saw huge increases in travel allowances to other sorts of benefits for rural members so that they would be able to provide better quality representation to those constituents. You cannot ensure that by dividing or by saying, well, Rupertsland is now going to be divided into 14 provincial ridings so that the MLA will not have to go throughout half the province in order to achieve the same sort of representation that an MLA in a city of Winnipeg riding might have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it goes without saying that there are certain advantages that an urban MLA will have. There are also certain advantages that a rural MLA will have. I would think, in fairness, that Elections Manitoba should be looking for not only all-party support for this but also to do what I believe Manitobans would believe, and that is that the importance of equality of vote in a democratic society has to be taken into consideration. I believe Elections Manitoba has done that in the past. I would suggest they have a role in the future in terms of doing it.

* (1540)

The other point that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) brought up was the enlarging of the size of the commission. I do not see any reason why that cannot be done. I think that the Conservatives have indicated support in the past for that. I and I believe the party would not have any problem in ensuring that there is fair representation on the commission to take into consideration many other things that might be out there.

In closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do want to see this bill pass. This is something which we have been waiting for. The Leader of the official opposition was correct in the sense that no rules have had to have been waived in order to see this bill pass, and I applaud all MLAs in recognizing the importance of this legislation passing prior to the budget. I think that it reinforces the support that we as elected officials have for the independence or the need for independence in Elections Manitoba and look forward to its passage and its receiving of Royal Assent. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 2, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les circonscriptions J lectorales.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would there be leave of the House to proceed with third reading of Bill 17? [interjection]

Madam Speaker, we will be bringing in the Lieutenant Governor.

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 one bill, which, in the name of the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which bill I respectfully request Your Honour's consent.

Bill 2–The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les circonscriptions 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 would ask with leave of the House, if there is leave, first of all, to have third reading of Bill 17.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to proceed with third reading of Bill 17? [agreed]

* (1550)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would therefore move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that 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, be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to put a few words on the record

with respect to Bill 17 and why Bill 17 actually came about. It had to come about.

We all know of the situation that had occurred in '95. As I read here from one of the newspapers: Monnin inquiry confirms vote-rigging plot and cover-up. We all know and we have all heard and people have made comments as to what has occurred. The Monnin inquiry lasted for a great deal of time. I was part of that inquiry and it shows from what I have read through the inquiry and heard and seen in the papers and on TV that certainly this bill is much needed to be able to preserve the quality of the people who are not only running for electoral office but for those that are voting for those same people.

I could start my comments at pretty well any time and I may jump back and forth, but I want to say that it was unfortunate that this situation did occur, unfortunate for all elected and to-be-elected representatives, whether it be in the Legislature or as members of Parliament or in our local jurisdictions as councillors or reeves.

Madam Speaker, it is everybody's right to vote, and it is everybody's right to vote for whom they please. It is everybody's right to hear the truth from the candidates and to hear what the party is going to promise and why they are running for that particular party. The incident in '95, I was rather surprised when I read the Monnin inquiry–I will comment from it and quote from it periodically–at the scheme itself. The scheme itself, according to Monnin, was put together or allegedly put together some week or so before the election writ was dropped.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Monnin refers many times to people being liars during this inquiry, not only lying to his investigators but lying to the inquiry itself and to him. One of the quotes that surprised me was from page 18. It says: "Sokolyk is an admitted liar. His testimony must therefore be considered with caution. I do however accept it in part."

It is this part, Madam Speaker, that not only surprised me but rather made me feel uneasy to my stomach. The meeting, a plot had its origin in Winnipeg in an office, the party headquarters. In addition to Sokolyk, Aitken, Barrett and Trachuk were present, some week or 10 days before the writs were dropped.

That is what made me feel, Madam Speaker, very, very sad, was that the gentleman whom I had gotten to know in 1990 when we ran against each other, whom I thought was an honourable man–and I still do associate and discuss different things with him when I do see him–I was surprised to find out that Mr. Trachuk was indeed involved somehow or knew about the scheme. It shows later on that he also, reluctantly not admitting it, was at a meeting with Mr. Aitken and Mr. Sinclair from Little Saskatchewan First Nations in Fairford, and that, Mr. Monnin says: "This conversation makes it clear that Trachuk was aware of what Aitken was up to, and I believe he was aware of the general scheme from the time of the first meeting when Aitken and Sokolyk were discussing the possible effects that aboriginal independent candidates might have on the vote."

Madam Speaker, we have heard and read of many of the people involved in the scheme, how it came about, the issues that were brought forward, when they were brought forward. I remember a comment made to me in June that if I knew about the scheme in January, why did it take me five and a half months to raise it. I remember it. I remember that quote. I do not remember whom it was said by, but I do remember it.

It took me five and a half months, yes, to raise it, but it took them three and a half years to bring it forward too–three and a half years of cover-up, covering up a scheme that has brought a lot of hardship and sorrow to a lot of people. Not only those that were involved directly, not the Taras Sokolyks only, not the Jules Bensons only, not the Gordon McFarlanes, the Darryl Sutherlands, the Allan Aitkens, the Cubby Barretts and all the other witnesses that were brought forward. Over 100 people were interviewed; 37 appeared before the inquiry. Some of the quotes and the comments that Mr. Monnin brings forward show that perhaps in some aspect of the political system, in some small aspect, there is a lack of respect for the people of this province and for the system that we govern ourselves under.

He goes on to say: "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." However, he writes, despite the strong words, vote rigging is not illegal. So the scheme to vote-rig and to take votes from one to the other so that another can come in, Mr. Monnin says, is not illegal. With the time element, I believe, that is involved, nothing can be done legally to certain people.

* (1600)

Madam Speaker, in reading through the inquiry and the newspapers–and I was, fortunately or unfortunately, one of the first to appear before the inquiry and had an opportunity then to watch and listen and be able to make my presentation as best I could without having an input or a knowledge of anything else that was going on–in many ways, I was amazed. People in my riding were amazed that something like this could go on, not necessarily that they were not saying that this happens all the time, something to this effect happens all the time, not saying that anybody particularly was so at fault for doing this that they should go to jail, yet Mr. Monnin feels that Mr. Sutherland and Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Barrett have perhaps been involved to the point that they should be prosecuted, and perhaps once the inquiry by the independent body finds out or decides whether there will be any charges laid.

I have read through the recommendations, Madam Speaker. The recommendations that are from his report all relate to attempting to make sure that this does not happen again, whether it be by the Tories or by the Liberals or by the NDP or just in your local community town election.

He quotes, in one of his recommendations in the background, that the statute of limitations on prosecutions be extended to within one to two years in date upon which the electoral officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed.

Madam Speaker, that relates to the finding during the Monnin inquiry that Sokolyk and Aitken and Barrett broke Section 145(1) by inducing Darryl Sutherland to run. It also relates to findings that Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Wilson and McFarlane breached The Elections Finances Act, and they could be prosecuted.

Madam Speaker, on one hand, you look, you say, well, those that covered up the scheme and knew about the scheme and tried to cover up the money and the cheques and that, there has to be something in fault there for prosecution, but I wonder, and I wonder about Mr. Sutherland. I did not know Mr. Sutherland. I met Mr. Sutherland in June here of '98 in the hallway of the Legislative Assembly the first time. Even running against him, I never had the opportunity to debate with him, meet him or talk to him.

There are a lot of people, Madam Speaker, who are named, who have been interviewed that I had no idea up until seeing them on TV, in the newspaper or listening to their report on the inquiry who they were. I must have passed some of these people numerous times in eight years and did not know who they were, yet they were involved–it says in the inquiry–they were involved in this scheme and cover-up.

Jules Benson, I knew who he was. Why would perhaps the second-most powerful man in government want to be a part of such a scheme? Why would people like Mr. Aitken and others deny the fact that a scheme was in place?

Madam Speaker, during the summer of '98 and prior to the questioning of the investigators, as I was making my way around my communities, people were saying to me that I knew about it. We heard about it. We heard there was something going on, yet nothing and nobody came out until the night that Mr. Sutherland called Mr. Uruski to tell him about it. It was there. People, Mr. Sinclair phoned me directly to tell me. This happened in April of '95, and he knew, others knew, and no one said anything.

Elections Manitoba was told, were written to, were requested to get to the bottom of this. That was not done. Because if it was done, Bill 17 would not be before us, 37 people would not have gone to the inquiry, a hundred and some odd people would not have been interviewed and many lives would not be damaged forever. That is what bothers me as a person, not as a politician, as a person. Because even though I did not know Mr. Sokolyk very well, his implication in this scheme has brought a hardship on him and his family, Mr. Benson's, Mr. McFarlane's and the others.

We also hear, through Mr. Monnin, well, one of the other parts of Mr. Monnin's recommendations that I would like to quote from is that all parties prepare a code of ethics. I ask you, Madam Speaker, for those involved in the initial scheme and for those that were involved in the cover-up, what were they thinking of as ethics? That all parties prepare a code of ethics relates to the culture of the Tory party around the election scheme and the comments that are made.

Madam Speaker, one comment that I found, because right to the end the Conservative lawyer kept going after everybody but the Conservatives, but the ones that were involved, but the ones that did the wrong doing, but then he is quoted: this inquiry is not about judging or commenting on matters of morality. This is a lawyer, ethics, political gamesmanship and political strategies. The plan was not illegal, it was just stupid. So not only is what has been done in some parts illegal, this lawyer says it is all so stupid. Perhaps even more stupid than illegal. A lawyer using words to implicate those that were involved in the 1995 scheme and cover-up.

Madam Speaker, some of the other quotes that we have from the Monnin inquiry when it comes to the code of ethics–and we bring in people like Mr. Thorsteinson and Mr. Kozminski, to name a few. Quite frankly, Mr. Kozminski says, with my political leanings and what the NDP has done to the province over the years, I would do anything to take votes away from them–from the NDP. I would provide cheques of $249 or $100, not to my candidate, not to the party candidate that I support. Was Mr. Trachuk's name or the Interlake Progressive Conservative Party name on these cheques? They were made out to Darryl Sutherland.

* (1610)

Mr. Thorsteinson–I do not know and does not fall into anything illegal. The plan was not illegal according to the lawyer, but my personal contributions to their campaigns were entirely appropriate and legal. However, the lawyer says, political strategy, the plan was not illegal; it was stupid. So now is this lawyer implicating that people who had got themselves involved did this immorally, illegally?

Mr. Benson–you know, Madam Speaker, I remember the day, the evening, January 8, that Mr. Sale and I attended, and it was after reading the Monnin inquiry and going through it. I have tried to keep as much away from it. I have read it once. I have only read one other transcript, have gone through the notes. The notes that I found about Mr. Trachuk and some of the other people implicated, first time reading and first time surprised, not even hearing about it on TV, that evening when Mr. Aitken said to Mr. Sale and I and Mr. Sigurdson, there were high-ranking Tories involved. There were cheques. You would be surprised who is involved. High-ranking Tories, who might that be? Is Mr. Benson a high-ranking Tory? Is Mr. Sokolyk a high-ranking Tory? Who would have even thought of Mr. Thorsteinson or Mr. Kozminski as high-ranking Tories?

Madam Speaker, what Mr. Aitken had indicated to us that night was that there was a scheme, there was a plan, there was a cover-up. So, as hard perhaps at that time as it was to understand what Mr. Aitken was saying and confirming, it was very, very disturbing at that time, but it seemed far beyond the people of the stature that Mr. Aitken was referring to would be involved in something like this, but I cannot speak for those people for doing what they have done.

Further to Mr. Monnin's quotes on ethics: "The attempt here at vote splitting (or 'vote fracturing', which phrase some of the witnesses seemed to prefer) was in my opinion clearly unethical and morally reprehensible." "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 an 'I know better' attitude."

That is what the Conservative code of ethics committee is going to be looking at, along with ours and the Liberals: reporting the financial cover-up, the blaming one on the other; was I fired, am I a liar, did I retire, was I a liar? I do not know how many times Mr. Monnin said about the amount of liars that he encountered through the 37 that were interviewed, I am sorry, that appeared before the inquiry and of the hundred-and-some who were interviewed by the investigators. Again, I knew not of most of these people, and if Val Hueging or Sue Hoplock came up to me today and introduced themselves to me I would not know, unless they said their names, who they were.

So, why the involvement, why is the wish of the power spread so far, spread so deep that the ethics and that families that this whole political system, unless we ourselves as legislators improve on it, this will still continue?

Madam Speaker, some of the other comments that Mr. Benson was involved, that he was trying to help out a friend, he was trying to help out a friend the day before election day, did he know prior to that what was going on, what had been going on, how in the matter of a day this was all brought to light, that one friend would come to another with a cheque for $4,000 and tell him what happened, what he did and could he cover it up for him, and there is no problem, that unfortunately became a bigger issue and caused a lot more hardship for people than the scheme of the vote rigging.

There are others who admittedly deny knowing anything about it. There are many who have admitted and have said to me that they had known about it, that were told by Mr. Aitken, were told by Mr. Sutherland that this was occurring, not just Mr. Sinclair. Media, a person on the street, a person in a bar, a person at the door during an election, this is what we are doing. There is a comment made by Mr. Sinclair, if you do not want to vote for the Tories, at least vote for your own; can you at least do that? Now, there is a wonderful attitude, candidates standing there, the campaign manager saying, according to Mr. Sinclair, well, if you cannot vote for us, vote for your own.

Some of the other issues, Madam Speaker, that have been brought up is the fact that Mr. Monnin quotes how if people would have told the truth earlier, had come forward earlier, truthfulness to the investigators–how many times did Mr. Sokolyk make a statement? How many times did the investigation show one quote from a witness and the inquiry showed another quote–oh, I did not mean it then; I mean it now, but I did not mean it then; I did not understand the question; I understand it now; or, if I was going to do it I would do it over again.

It is surprising what Mr. Monnin quotes, says in many of his statements, that had people like Mr. Barrett, people like Mr. McFarlane, Mr. Sokolyk, Mr. Benson, told the truth, had Mr. Barrett told the truth when interviewed, a great deal of time and expense could have been saved. The same goes for Mr. Sokolyk, Mr. Gordon McFarlane, Mr. Benson. Had the bank records not disappeared and reappeared, we would have saved plenty of money.

Madam Speaker, I find that reading through the Monnin inquiry and the recommendations that he has provided and that we are hopefully passing today, I am hoping that these recommendations will, in fact, provide a better system so that people who are voting on voting day know that they are voting for a true candidate, know that they have not been induced or fooled into thinking that they should be voting for someone else, that the Monnin recommendations for the ethics and for The Elections Finances Act be changed so that, in fact, we can have the proper report system that this province duly needs.

* (1620)

Madam Speaker, Mr. Cubby Barrett, who indeed in the report–Mr. Monnin seems to go back to Mr. Barrett and his comments many times. It seemed from reading the report that Mr. Barrett did and said what he wanted to say. I was not there. I have not read his transcript, but the report alone: Had Mr. Barrett told the truth, had the long-time Tory fundraiser, life member of the Tory party, told the truth earlier, a lot of money and time could have been saved.

Was Mr. Sutherland at your house, Mr. Barrett? asked the inquiry investigators. No. Was Mr. Aitken there? No.

Monnin's report says afterwards: Yes, he was. Yes, Allan was there too. Yes, my son was there. Yes, we offered money, as a loan.

Madam Speaker, it does bother–people will always bother people. For some it will stay forever. For others, they have forgotten it; for others, it is nothing. Who really knew about it on the other side? Who really knew? Was it from Mr. Benson down, or was it from Mr. Sutherland up? Was it from Mr. Benson down? We will never know.

One of the quotes in one of the things that I refer to, Madam Speaker, when I make comment on that, is in the last paragraph prior to recommendations by Mr. Monnin. I will read them into the record. I do not know if anybody else has or not: Even after having seen and heard all of the witnesses, annotated the voluminous transcripts, and reviewed and considered the various exhibits, I am left with the lingering feeling that perhaps I am not in possession of all of the facts of this scheme or plot involving the three aboriginal candidates, as well as the subsequent cover-up. I am dismayed with the lack of truthfulness by some of the major witnesses.

Now, Madam Speaker, that is Monnin's quote. That is after he has heard, seen all the interviews, read through it with his counsels. So where does that leave us? Where does that leave Mr. Benson and what may happen to him? Where does that leave Mr. McFarlane, and to him, a renowned accountant for the renowned firm, appointed by the head of the Conservative Party? What is going to happen and what has happened to Mr. Sokolyk? Mr. Barrett goes on his pleasant way, runs off to Cuba with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), does what he wants. Mr. Aitken, we do not know. Mr. Sutherland is still probably living on welfare on Peguis.

An Honourable Member: And working for Cubby.

Mr. C. Evans: And perhaps working for Mr. Barrett.

But one of the quotes–and I will close with this quote–that brings a little bit of shame and, even though retracted, shows the arrogance, shows the unethical behaviour of people. Madam Speaker, I will ask you how you would feel: Tempers flared. Kozminski said he would go to any length to take votes away. Mr. Barrett viewed the NDP as rats, and we must get rid of them. This is a man, a leader in the community, referring to people that he not only knows for many years–

An Honourable Member: That is not right. He said they act like rats.

Mr. C. Evans: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is then chirping his way away, saying today that what Mr. Monnin has said and written is wrong. That is what the Minister of Agriculture is saying. Barrett viewed the NDP as rats. How many of those rats on that side have jumped off the ship? I do not like to be called a rat. I do not like to be referred to as a rat. That brings it a little closer to home, those kinds of comments that we heard in the inquiry, and those quotes will come back to haunt not only those involved, and I know that the ones involved were few. Again, was the scheme and the plot from the top down, from Mr. Benson down, from Mr. Sokolyk down, or did it come from the bottom up?

That day at the Norwood was a troublesome day for me, and it will always stick in my mind. It will always be with me to hear what Mr. Sigurdson and Mr. Aitken told me and Mr. Sale and confirmed to me and how true, even though he denies it, those comments that Mr. Aitken made and confirmed about high-ranking Tories, about cheques, about a scheme, aboriginal candidates. It was all true, and somebody should have known about it, should have found out and should have done something about it in 1995, not in 1998, and not destroy the lives it destroyed as it has today.

* (1630)

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I am pleased to rise on the third reading for Bill 17 and put some additional comments on the record. Unfortunately my time ran out when I was doing second reading before I had a chance to actually speak about the bill itself in more detail, and now on third reading we have an opportunity to do that.

As I was listening this afternoon to the member for Interlake's (Mr. C. Evans) eloquent comments, comments that more than almost any other member in this House, with the possible exception of the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and perhaps the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) and also the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), ring true as coming from personal, first-hand experience with the devastation that has been wrought on the people of Manitoba individually and collectively by the unfortunate and disreputable actions of people in this province during the scandal of the 1995 provincial election.

While I was thinking about what led to Bill 17, I thought about something that I recall from my Grade 9 Latin, and that was reading about Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar was a great general and, in the minds of many, a great leader in the sense that he had an enormous impact upon his time, but he might not have been that leader, most likely would not have had the impact on history that he did, if at one point in his life he had not made a momentous decision, a momentous decision that we recognize today in the phrase "crossing the Rubicon."

The Rubicon is quite a small river actually, Madam Speaker, in Italy and Julius Caesar with his armies got to that point and had a decision to make. Was he going to stay on one side of the Rubicon with his victorious armies or was he going to cross the Rubicon and make a major statement to the people of Rome and to the Senate, a statement that I am in charge now? We know what he did. He crossed the Rubicon with very important and influential consequences to the history of western civilization.

I think that there were probably several Rubicons in the life of the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) since April 20–or perhaps earlier–1995, but as Justice Monnin said in his report, we may never know the full story. But we do know what happened on, I believe it was June 23, 1998, when the Premier has said that Mr. Sokolyk spoke with him after Question Period where the official opposition had been asking for answers and saying: was Mr. Sokolyk involved, what was going on in the vote-rigging allegations that had occurred in 1995? The First Minister had for days been saying nothing had happened. There was nothing.

Mr. Sokolyk met the Premier outside and said: They are on to something. Madam Speaker, at that point I believe the First Minister crossed his Rubicon, at least that point if not earlier, but from what we know of the situation, that, in my mind, was the crossing of the Rubicon for the First Minister. He had a choice to make at that point, and I do not care what he says publicly or privately or what the people who are supporting his view say, he had a choice to make as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and as the Premier of the Province of Manitoba. He knew there was a major crisis. He knew there were major questions being asked. He had to have known at least some of it, but even if he knew nothing other than what Mr. Sokolyk said to him on June 23–They are on to something–he should have said: What are they on to? Come to my office.; let us talk. We have to get to the bottom of this.

No, Madam Speaker, he chose to turn his face away, as he has chosen to turn his face away from the people of the province of Manitoba over 11 long years. By the Premier's action on June 23, if not prior, we are now today reaping the whirlwind of his actions when he chose to cross his own personal Rubicon on June 23 of last year.

Bill 17 is the outcome, as we all know, of the Monnin inquiry, and it deals with five of the seven recommendations that Justice Monnin made. I would like to speak actually about the bill and the particulars and the process, not the process, the unfortunate process that led to the creation of the Monnin inquiry, but the process that was undertaken by members of this Legislature to deal with the recommendations coming from the Monnin inquiry.

We have heard in this House time and time again from members of the government and also from the independent members of the Legislature, most particularly and many times recently by the current member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that we do not work together, that the political process is too partisan, that all we do is make cheap political points–I believe is a comment that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) is very wont to make–and that we are just in it for our own political benefit. Well, I think the process that has led to the creation of Bill 17 gives the lie to those comments at least in this one particular instance. I for one am very pleased to have been a small part of the implementation or the production of Bill 17, and I think it is something that we all here can look forward to talking to our constituents about as a job well done by all honourable members. Again, as the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) so eloquently stated, it is too bad we have to have Bill 17, but the reality of it is that we had a huge mess to clean up. We still have not got all the stuff off the rug. We may never get it off the rug, but at least as much as we can do now, I believe, we have done in a very effective, efficient manner, and a very tripartite manner.

Madam Speaker, Justice Monnin made seven recommendations to the Legislature, and on April 13 there was a meeting held at the invitation of Elections Manitoba of The Elections Act and the Election Finances Act Advisory Committees. These are advisory committees that are made up of representatives of all three registered political parties in the province. The composition of these committees changes as the needs change, but for the last year or so, I have had the honour and privilege of being a member of the advisory committees and the ad hoc committees as a representative of our caucus and as someone who, over the last 20 years, has had a direct relationship with The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act.

* (1640)

As I stated in my comments at second reading, I helped interpret those two pieces of legislation for NDP candidates and campaigns both in 1981 and 1986 provincial elections and had the honour of working with the then Chief Electoral Officer, the late Richard Willis, in putting together, very quickly I might add, 57 returning officers for the 1988 provincial election. So I have a great deal of experience in the administration and interpretation of these acts and an enormous amount of respect for the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba who do enormous amounts of work with generally very positive results.

When you talk about election campaigns, it is virtually never stated in the province of Manitoba that there were election irregularities that should have been caught by Elections Manitoba or the returning officer. I am sure we all have stories about our local returning officer at one point or another who did not do exactly what we wanted or made a ruling that we did not quite like, but by and large, the proceedings and the administration of elections in this province are done with a great deal of honour and integrity and openness, and Elections Manitoba needs to take a great deal of that credit.

There is some question, I know, about the investigation that was undertaken in 1995 after the provincial election by Elections Manitoba. I believe that many of the recommendations found in Bill 17 today will put to rest any possible lack of power or authority on behalf of Elections Manitoba.

Unfortunately, we do need to make changes and did need to make changes to the two pieces of legislation. As I have stated, it is hugely unfortunate that it came about as a result of this dark stain on the electoral process in the province of Manitoba, but the results, I think, are very positive and the members of the committee and the Elections Manitoba and the legislative drafters are to be commended for the alacrity with which they produced Bill 17. We met on April 13 and the bill, I believe, was printed and distributed one week later on April 20. That is an incredibly fast turn-around time. We had the public hearings last night, and we are preparing within a short period of time to pass it through third reading. I think it is, as I have said, a very positive statement on behalf of all members of the Legislature and everybody involved in this process.

I would like to speak about some of the recommendations of the Monnin report. The first recommendation of the Monnin report was that the time limit on prosecutions be changed. The former time limit on prosecutions was two years after the commission of the alleged offence. What that was, in effect, Madam Speaker, was the statute of limitations of two years. We know that after the initial finding of Elections Manitoba after the 1995 election that there was no problem, more than two years went by before Darryl Sutherland came forward. So there was no ability under the old legislation to come up with any punishment, if you will, or sanctions because it had come to light more than two years after the alleged offence.

The new legislation follows specifically on Monnin's recommendation and changes the time limit on prosecutions to not later than one year after the date on which the Chief Electoral Officer has reasonable and probable ground to believe that an offence has been committed. That means that the CEO can institute an investigation into an alleged offence virtually at any time once an alleged offence has been made public. Now, I say, Madam Speaker, virtually at any time because a later recommendation of Monnin does put a time constraint on the effective ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to do an investigation, but I will get to that recommendation in a moment. Also, another recommendation addresses the reasonable and probable grounds scenario that is in Monnin.

So now we have a situation where the two-year time constraint has been eliminated and the Chief Electoral Officer can initiate an investigation if he has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed or may have been committed. But he does, Madam Speaker, have a time limit. He has a year in which to complete his or her investigation. I think, as we have seen with the unfortunate events that have taken place in the United States with the Special Prosecutor, that it is not a bad idea to have a time limit on an investigation, particularly when under Bill 17 the Chief Electoral Officer also has additional authorities that will enable him or her to do an effective investigation within that year limit.

The next recommendation I am going to talk about is Recommendation No. 7 which states that rather than the current time limit for records to be kept–and I will admit, Madam Speaker, I cannot remember what that time limit is, but under the Bill 17 amendments, under The Elections Finances Act, the records of candidates, constituency financial officers and chief financial officers of all registered political parties are required to keep records for at least five years from the election and/or from constituency associations which make annual reports for five years.

The reason five years was chosen, Madam Speaker, is that is the election cycle. If a government goes for its full term, its full mandate, that is five years, so Monnin recommended in Bill 17, responds to that by saying every financial officer, whether it be of a constituency association or registered political party or a candidate in an election, has to keep those records for five years. That goes along with the first recommendation which enables the Chief Electoral Officer to have records available for an extended period of time so that if an allegation comes forward, as it did in the vote-rigging scandal, records will be there and will not have been destroyed.

Now, Madam Speaker, if an allegation comes forward after five years, then that is a potential problem because the records are not required to be kept, but the assumption is that within a five-year period, you are likely to have a bringing forward of any concerns or allegations.

Another recommendation, part of this same recommendation, is that not only must the records be kept for five years, but if the Chief Electoral Officer under another provision of Bill 17 institutes an investigation for which he or she has one year to complete. The records that are under investigation need to be kept for the length of that investigation. Let me give you an example. Under the new rules, if Darryl Sutherland had come forward and the Chief Electoral Officer has assumed that there were reasonable grounds for an investigation of allegations of misconduct, four years, 363 days, i.e., two days before the five-year limitation was to expire, the Chief Electoral Officer could require that the records of everyone who were involved in that allegation of potential wrongdoing would have to be kept for the duration of the investigation, i.e., up to another full year. That gives the Chief Electoral Officer enough time to undertake the investigation.

* (1650)

Madam Speaker, another very important recommendation that finds reflection in Bill 17, Justice Monnin suggested that the Chief Electoral Officer have far more sweeping powers to do investigations and to have access to records, and he spoke of the powers given to the British Columbia Chief Electoral Officer. The committee looked at the powers given to the Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia and decided that they were not necessarily the kinds of powers that we were prepared to give to the Manitoba Chief Electoral Officer, partly because the political climate and situation is very different here in Manitoba than it is in British Columbia.

The recommendation that has been accepted and finds fruition in Bill 17 states that under The Elections Finances Act, the Chief Electoral Officer may conduct an inspection or audit of records that relate to information that is in or should be in the statements or returns required to be filed under The Elections Finances Act.

When you put that together with the five-year requirement to keep records and the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to undertake an investigation that concludes, if not begins, after that five-year period with this third recommendation that the CEO have access to all the records that could reasonably be expected to be found by a constituency association, a registered political party or a candidate, you have, I believe, a very good set of recommendations and an extremely workable process whereby the Chief Electoral Officer can have the power and the authority and the right to do the investigation that is needed to be done, while at the same time preserving the rights and responsibilities of the parties and candidates and constituency associations. The Chief Electoral Officer cannot, like the special prosecutor in the United States, go on a fishing expedition, but if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that there may be an irregularity, then the Chief Electoral Officer has the right to go in and investigate those records.

Now, Madam Speaker, this does not mean that under this section the CEO would only investigate where he or she thought it was a major problem like we have seen in the Monnin inquiry. It is a very complicated process to do audited statements for elections, and the legislation rightly requires a great deal of detail and many, many forms to be filled out and many records to be kept. Each of the political parties keeps their records in different ways, and each of the political parties has within the legislation different reporting mechanisms, et cetera.

So it is a complicated process, and these regulations allow the Chief Electoral Officer to work with, in the vast majority of cases, the auditors and financial officers to make sure that the public's rights to information and to well-run and honestly run elections are upheld, while at the same time not going in, as I said, on a fishing expedition.

Another recommendation, and this follows again, another series of elements to Bill 17 strengthens the auditing proposals relating directly from Monnin. I am certainly not an auditor, nor do I pretend to have any major financial expertise, but I do want to congratulate and commend Mr. John Kelly, who has worked with Elections Manitoba on these audit elements of the election of Bill 17 and others for presenting to our advisory committee a very clearly thought out and simple to understand series of recommendations which have found their way into Bill 17, the recommendations that will help strengthen the auditor's ability to do their job, at the same time protecting the auditors from situations where the organization that they may be auditing might want to get rid of them.

Briefly, it requires an auditor who realizes that he or she is not independent of the person or organization being audited to resign. What that means is that if an auditor realizes they cannot do an independent audit for whatever reason, they are obligated to resign. A second element is that if an auditor resigns or is replaced by the organization, whether it be a constituency association, a political party, or a candidate, before the audit is complete, then the auditor who is being replaced or who resigns must put in writing to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the incoming auditor the reasons why he or she feels that they are being replaced or the reasons why he or she is resigning.

Now, that may seem to be a small matter, Madam Speaker, but this is a great protection for auditors. It protects the person who is leaving and it protects the person who is coming in. If an auditor feels that they have been let go because they wanted to put in something that the constituency association or the party feels they do not want to have in and the auditor feels that to be true to their professional ethics they have to disagree, then it is incumbent upon the auditor to make that view known, that situation known to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the new incoming auditor. That provides a protection, as I said, for the process, and it provides a protection for the people of Manitoba as well. It requires the auditor to use generally accepted auditing standards in auditing all records so that the auditors, when they undertake these very difficult situations, are using generally accepted auditing standards, so they can be held up to those standards by the Chief Electoral Officer if need be.

The auditor must also–must, not may but must–report any questionable matter or practice such as the failure to maintain proper accounting records or the failure to maintain a trail of cheques. This also makes the process more fair, and it gives the Chief Electoral Officer more authority to look at the situation if this is not being done. The auditor also has the power to require access to records by the organization or person who is being audited. So this gives the auditor more power to actually say, I must have access to these records.

Also, it provides the auditor with what is called qualified privilege. This prevents a client from suing an auditor for defamation for oral or written reports made under the act. What that says, Madam Speaker, is if an auditor has been released from their duties and writes to the Chief Electoral Officer saying I feel that I was let go because I was in the process of uncovering something that should not have been done, then this other section of the act prohibits the person or the organization who let this auditor go from suing for defamation of character. So it strengthens the role and responsibilities and rights and protection for the auditors.

Madam Speaker, another major recommendation of the Monnin report deals with a code of ethics. Now, Monnin suggested that all political parties ascribe to the same code of ethics. At the committee, all three parties agreed that while that was a great idea in principle–and Justice Monnin also referred to the Lortie commission report, which was a federal report produced in 1991 which suggested codes of ethics for political parties. The Lortie report recommended not the same code of ethics for all political parties but a code of ethics and a standard of conduct to be prepared by each political party, so that their members, the people who work for the party, the people who are candidates for the party and the public at large would know the values and the principles upon which each political party bases its activities. We agreed that because of this there would not be a section in Bill 17 dealing specifically with a code of ethics. We also agreed that Elections Manitoba would bring us together again with some suggested general guidelines that all political parties could agree to that would be overarching and then expanded on by the individual codes of ethics of the political parties.

One other recommendation of Justice Monnin dealt with the reporting formats for Elections Manitoba and political parties. Justice Monnin, Madam Speaker, was dealing with The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act as they were put in place for the 1995 election because that is when the alleged offence took place. You will not find in Bill 17 any reference to the recommendations that Justice Monnin had in his Recommendation No. 4, because it was felt by all concerned and agreed with by Elections Manitoba that those issues had been dealt with in the massive changes and amendments to The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act that we debated and passed in this House last June. So, therefore, you will not find any of those in this bill because they are already in the legislation.

* (1700)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) will have nine minutes remaining.

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