[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
.1108 
[English]
The Chairman: I call to the meeting to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, colleagues.
We are pleased to welcome the famous Anna Terrana -
Mrs. Anna Terrana, MP (Vancouver East): Infamous.
The Chairman: Famous. We welcome the famous Anna Terrana from our House, colleagues, who has advanced the interests of western Canada in a very forceful and powerful way. She now has us all before her - or are we before you, Madam? - to listen to Bill C-307, which is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
I understand that she will be co-presenting. I'm not quite sure exactly how this goes, but I also would like to welcome the chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, and his counsel. I see Mrs. Terrana's counsel, Mr.-Dr.-Professor McWhinney, also at the table - welcome.
Mr. Ted McWhinney, MP (Vancouver Quadra): I waived my fees.
The Chairman: I assume you're there for moral support, and you have waived your fee.
Colleagues, this meeting, as I see it, is an opportunity to have Mrs. Terrana present some information as it relates to Bill C-307, which is her private member's bill.
.1110
We heard earlier from the minister himself, who had given us his general interest in Mrs. Terrana's bill, and he also suggested or presented the option that we might want to incorporate Mrs. Terrana's bill as further amendments to the bill we are currently studying, Bill C-63. That's something we will have to work out in due process, but today at least I want to hear from Mrs. Terrana - I think we all do - and then we'll go further, as you colleagues wish to go.
Mr. Langlois, did you want a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I would like to clarify the following point. Last Wednesday, October 30th, when Mr. Kingsley was appearing, I opened the discussion for the Bloc Québécois by showing a videotape. I had not given notice to the Committee that I was to present a video.
The clerk of the Committee, Mrs. Carrière, graciously reminded me that I was to give notice to the Committee before showing a videotape. I did not follow her suggestion which she then repeated. After her third intervention, I reacted in a quite rude way saying that she was not to tell me how the Official Opposition wanted to proceed with questioning of witnesses. My words went far beyond my thoughts and I have surely offended the Clerk although not in public.
I wish today to apologize in front of all my colleagues. This is not my usual way, on the contrary. That reaction is so unusual that I want to apologize to her.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Your graciousness is appreciated, colleague. Thank you for that intervention.
Mrs. Terrana, please.
Mrs. Terrana: I'm pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-307, my private member's bill. As you are aware, Bill C-307 proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act so that federal election voting hours would be staggered to allow all polls across Canada to close at approximately the same time.
I became Canadian by choice, not by birth, and since I made Canada my home, I have come to appreciate the physical beauty of our country, along with the kind and generous spirit of my fellow Canadians.
As a people Canadians have proven to me that they are both fair and sensible. Yet the first time I cast a vote in a Canadian federal election, I could not believe that election results from Atlantic and central Canada could be known in western Canada even before I had cast my own vote in British Columbia. This struck me as a situation that was very unfair to those Canadians who live in the west.
Since the time I cast my first ballot in a Canadian federal election, I have made a point of always voting in the morning. This way I can avoid hearing federal election results from Atlantic and central Canada - results that generally find their way out west long before the polls have closed in my region, and which usually include the media having already declared that a new government has been elected.
Whenever I hear federal election results from what we in B.C. term ``the east'', I always have the sense my vote does not count - that mostly only the voters of central Canada matter, for they alone can generally determine which political party becomes the next federal government.
As has been said by a past Canadian prime minister, Canada is not an easy country to govern. There are provincial and regional differences, and even as addressed in my bill, time differences, all of which can contribute to a province's sense of belonging within our confederation.
When I'm back in B.C. it is not easy to have my fellow western Canadians understand the central or Atlantic Canadian psyche, and I know the reverse holds equally true. This is evidenced by the fact that people often make jokes about B.C.'s differences, saying ``it's those mountains that make B.C. unique'', suggesting that the mountains somehow contribute to British Columbians being what we are. But believe me when I say that at the time of federal elections there is a sense of alienation experienced by many western Canadians when new federal governments are declared elected, even before our own local polls have closed.
The situation contributes to a sense that western Canadians are not an important factor in the selection of their own Canadian federal government - that as Canadians they are not a part of this very important process which determines the future of their own country.
This western Canadian sense that their federal votes do not count has been recognized by the Lortie commission, the 1993 House of Commons special committee on electoral reform, and by Canada's chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
.1115
Through a simple amendment to the Canada Elections Act, by staggering voting hours during federal elections, my bill proposes to bring a greater sense of fairness to the Canadian federal electoral process by helping western Canadians feel they are a meaningful part of that process.
The basic principle outlined in my bill is one that national surveys have said have the support of the majority of Canadians. In the 1990 national survey by Environics Research Group Limited, 70% of respondents said they felt very strongly about the premature release of election results, and favoured changes in voting hours to eliminate the problem. Of all respondents, 41% felt it was a very serious problem.
Canadians are a sensible people, and in the case of federal elections, our people want greater fairness in the federal electoral process.
There are other democratic countries around the world that also must accommodate federal voting within more than two time zones. Only Russia, with nine time zones, has more zones than Canada's six. However, no other democratic country in a similar situation has solved the difficulties of voting within multiple times zones.
With the successful passage of Bill C-307, Canada would once again take an international lead by addressing a difficult issue surrounding fairness, with the issue this time being one of creating a fairer electoral process. The solution that Canada develops to this problem is likely one that will be examined by other democratic countries that face similar multiple time zone voting difficulties.
I appreciate the support my bill has received from my colleagues across Canada. It was a credit to my fellow MPs that parties and politics were put aside so that my bill could be referred to this committee quickly.
As I said last week in my speech at second reading of my bill, I am open to amendments to the bill. After discussion with many of my Atlantic Canadian colleagues, I understand that the voting hours originally proposed may prove to be rather late for the counting of ballots in Atlantic Canada. There is, of course, no point in making voting hours fairer for western Canadians, while at the same time making them less favourable to Atlantic Canadians. I therefore wish to propose the following amendment to the voting hours that I outlined in my original bill.
I propose that instead of voting for 12 hours using 11:30 p.m. Newfoundland time as the basis for determining the opening and closing times for polls across Canada, federal polling places be open for an 11-hour period, with the following hours being utilized for their opening and closing: 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. in British Columbia and Yukon; 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. in Alberta and Northwest Territories; 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nunavut; 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
I believe that given the four-and-a-half-hour time difference across the country, these particular hours are the most sensible and cost-effective. In developing these new hours I've kept in mind a point made to me by Mr. Kingsley, which was that for each additional hour the polling places are open, a further $1 million in expenses is incurred. Therefore by reducing by one hour the polling hours outlined in my bill, I propose to save the Canadian taxpayer $1 million.
These new voting hours I propose have also taken into account the proposed voting hours of the Lortie commission by suggesting that polling places from Newfoundland to the Ontario-Manitoba border be closed at 10 p.m., only one half-hour later than the 9:30 p.m. closing time proposed by the commission.
Although under my proposed amendment polls in Newfoundland would close one and a half hours before the polls have closed in the rest of Canada, with approximately one hour being required for the counting of ballots Newfoundland poll results should be available with less than one half-hour left before polls close in the rest of the country.
Although under my proposed amendment polls in the Maritimes would close one hour before polls have closed in the rest of Canada, with one hour being allowed for the counting of ballots the maritime poll results should be available right at the time polls close in the rest of our country.
By opening federal polls earlier than the hours outlined in my bill, my proposed amendment would result in reduced evening voting hours mostly in B.C. There might be other amendments proposed to the voting hours suggested in my bill. I would, however, ask all members of this committee to remember that the intention of my bill is to stagger polling hours across Canada so that western Canadians do not by any means hear polling results - mostly those results from central Canada - before their own polls have closed.
.1120
Whatever amendment to my bill may finally be agreed upon by this committee, I strongly believe that all polls in central Canada should close at the same time as the polls in western Canada, and that the closing time of polling places in B.C. should not be any earlier than 7 p.m.
I thank you for your time and consideration, and wish you the best in your deliberations. And I hope that we can all celebrate together on election day in the same round.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Terrana.
I wasn't going to hear a reaction from the chief electoral officer yet. Is that agreed? Or do you have something you wish to present? No.
I think that at the beginning we should just be hearing Ms Terrana's principle, and then have it tested or queried by various people who wish to ask questions about it. Then I have a couple of suggestions as your chairman, but I'll begin with....
Oh, Mr. Langlois, did you wish to make a point before -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would ask you to give the floor to our colleague from the Reform Party since members of his party have raised in the House a few points that we could address immediately. We will come back at the end.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker or Mr. Harper, you're both first on my list. Mr. Speaker is on my list ahead of you, but....
[Translation]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): I thank Mr. Langlois for his consideration.
[English]
I just have a comment, and then a couple of questions. First of all, I have a comment. If I understood, you observed in your remarks that you had found out the results in eastern Canada via the media. I must say that while I myself found out results about polls and counts down east, I never heard them through the media. I'm not aware of widespread media violations of the blackout; I found it out through other means. I just want to make that as a comment, because it's not generally been my experience.
I want to ask something, and Mr. McWhinney may want to add his thoughts. The big question is, why are we doing this? What are the studies or evidence that indicate that the closing of the polls down east is generally known? What evidence do we have that people out west generally know the poll results? What percentage of the population would tend to know the results when they go to vote? What evidence is there that this knowledge influences whether they vote, and how they vote? And if it influences how they vote, in what way does it influence how they vote? I'd like to know if there is documented evidence or literature on these issues.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you, Mr. Harper.
First of all, surely our media would not do that, because it's punishable, but you surely hear it through the American media.
As for the studies, from what I understand, there is no proof that British Columbians don't go to vote because they know the results; it's not been determined. Surely when all the reports were released - there was the royal commission report, several reports were released - the concern was not just in western Canada, but also in eastern Canada. There was support from the eastern Canada provinces.
The fact that you live in Alberta is already a bonus to you, because you only have two hours. The concern is really when the results come from Quebec and Ontario. In 1993 at 5:15 p.m. we already knew who had won the government. It's really being left out. But no, there is no proof that in fact people don't go to vote.
But I must assure you that over the years I've heard several people say ``I'm not going to vote; I don't count.'' It's probably a perception more than anything else, but surely many people have not gone to vote because they knew the results. And they know that's what I said, because I heard them say that, and I know they didn't go.
Mr. Harper: This is directed to the other witnesses: do we have anything more than anecdotal evidence on these questions?
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, do you wish to answer that?
Mr. Harper, is that all right?
Mr. Harper: Sure.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Good morning to all the members. It's a pleasure for me to acquiesce to your request that I be here this morning.
With respect to the specific question raised by the honourable member, I'm not aware of any specific study as such that would indicate there is an impact. There is the royal commission report of February 1992, which raised the issue, and there has been editorial comment from time to time.
.1125
The only other thing I heard, quite by happenstance, was last night on the news. In the presidential elections in the United States, it is felt that the early release of results in the east is having a 3% impact on turnout in the western parts. In addition, it was reported recently in the United States media - I think it was on ABC - that there is a move afoot by seven states, including California, with 34 million people, to prevent the release of the results from the eastern states to California before the end of polling.
I don't know how they're going to come to a solution. I know how difficult it is in Canada, but I thought I would just answer your question, and provide some background about the fact that the Americans are doing something.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you.
Mr. McWhinney, did you want to make a brief comment?
Mr. McWhinney: Yes. To my knowledge, there is no scientific, empirically based study of this. An obvious way of doing it would be in the United States, where the funds are available. You ask voters in California if they were affected. You produce the results.
But it is accepted that, in a way, the instantaneity of reporting in the United States - the eastern United States - does affect the turnout of western voters. It's a commonplace acceptance by political scientists and others that there is an effect, but nobody has argued that it has had the effect, for example, on election votes that say the counting in Illinois had on the 1960 U.S. presidential election.
So there's no actual empirically based study, but it's commonly accepted by specialists in the field that it does persuade voters to stay home, or not to come out, particularly in bad weather in California.
The interesting country to examine would be the former Soviet Union, because they've taken up democracy in a big way. There are really only one or two elections to go on, but I would think you might get some startling results there.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Harper: I would like to make a comment before I go to my next question. I'm not entirely sure we're fixing a problem here. Just from the answer of Mr. Kingsley, I note that when you're talking about a 3% effect in a society that has no blackout - which we have - that does not seem to me to be high. Anyway....
This is my last question, but it's a big one. We all know there are different solutions to this problem: delaying the count, or there are others. It seems to me they all disadvantage somebody. They either inconvenience the voter, or they inconvenience the media, the party workers, or party machinery.
Why would we choose the solution that inconveniences voters, that makes voters either tramp off to the polls late at night, or miss some of the valuable after-dinner hours? Why would we not choose a solution like delaying the count, which, it seems to me, would inconvenience fewer important players in the process than the voter himself?
Mrs. Terrana: Well, let me just answer about the blackout. You know very well that the blackout does not exist. Fortunately, technology nowadays does not allow us to have that luxury.
I would like Mr. Kingsley in fact to tell you more about delaying the count, because I discussed that with him too.
The Chairman: Please go ahead.
Mr. Kingsley: Delaying the count is one possible solution. It is much preferable than to delay the release of results, because quite frankly I don't think that is a starter. I think the leakage would be tremendous, with party people coming back, or candidate representatives going back to their candidates, and then we would have all sorts of data out there.
The Chairman: This is the first formal time the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is hearing this - delaying the release of the vote is not something you would recommend at all?
Mr. Kingsley: Delaying the release of the results, in the sense of the count taking place immediately after the vote, but then the polling division people sit on those results and don't transmit them, is well-nigh impossible, with party representatives, candidates' representatives there. That is not on.
.1130
On delaying the count, I think it's important to remember that we are dealing here with 4.5 hours that have to be compressed into nothing effectively to have any kind of effect. The six time zones amount to 4.5 hours. We've given the clerk of the committee maps of Canada with the time zones and with the new electoral boundaries, in case members are interested in that.
So in Newfoundland we're essentially talking about adding 4.5 hours of work to the people who are there. They're sitting there, or going home and coming back. And how would we handle the box? These are practical matters, but I think the committee should be aware of them.
In the Maritimes they would be doing that for four hours. In Ontario and Quebec, it's three hours, and so on until you get to the close.
Now, there is a natural half-hour in the count, before the count is out, before the first poll reports to the returning office, usually about half an hour. I haven't done a scientific study here, but within an hour one can expect that the majority of the polls have reported, so there's a half-hour that can be usefully played with here. So how Elections Canada would handle it would turn out to be our problem, if that were the way.
The other impact that must be kept in mind is that even though the elector would not be inconvenienced, the elector as a consumer of news about the results would be affected, because the results in terms of the media would only start to come out after that waiting period would have been met. You may wish to consider that as part of the variables that have some import in the matter.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, please.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I can appreciate what you've done in the bill. Out in western Canada, whether it's a real problem or perceived, it's there in the minds of many of our voters, so I appreciate that you've tried to approach it with some kind of a solution.
I see two things we're working toward in terms of the voting hours. One is to deal with the problem, and that's what you've tried to do here. The other is to give the voters access to the polls.
Now, what we've done in the Maritimes and Ontario is limit access to the polls in the morning period. My question is, what is the difference if we don't give all areas of Canada an 11-hour voting period? For example, in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and the other respective areas listed here, why not have the poll opened at 8 a.m.? It's a longer voting hour, and I know the cost factor is there, but are there arguments beyond this that are against that kind of idea?
Mrs. Terrana: Actually that's something else I explored. The Toronto Sun suggested we open all the polls at 7 a.m., and we keep them open until 10 p.m.
From what I understand, the problem is that if you don't keep the polling stations open the same amount of time, it could be discrimination. So if you open them 12 hours, and we go back to the 12 hours they had proposed in the beginning, then you can go from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in British Columbia, and then accordingly. And you get closer to.... In the Maritimes, you would start at 10 a.m. instead of 9 a.m., which is better than 11 a.m., right? You don't cut those hours.
But there is not much flexibility, as you know. If you go to 13, if you want to start at 9 a.m. and end at 10 p.m. in the Maritimes, then you have to start at 6 a.m. in British Columbia, and they don't know how viable that is.
Maybe Mr. Kingsley has the answers to that. In Haiti they do start at 6 a.m., but I don't know about Canada.
Mr. Speaker: Now, you say discrimination. Is this about our Charter of Rights and discrimination? On the other hand, people can't go to vote in the morning. They say they do that in British Columbia, but out in the Maritimes, I can't go in the morning; you took a right away from me as well.
Mrs. Terrana: Do you want my solution?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mrs. Terrana: Let's change Canada to one time zone when you have time -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Terrana: - and we're all happy. You know, the Americans tried. If all of North America agrees, let's go ahead with that. There is no other solution, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate, but....
Yes, why don't you say something?
.1135
Mr. McWhinney: I was going to say that I don't see any constitutional objection to the point you raised. There might be inconvenience in terms of keeping volunteer scrutineers there for longer periods, but in principle our constitution requires fairness in the electoral system. It doesn't require an equality before the law, which is essentially an individual right, in terms of a uniformity in the duration of voting from province to province.
So in principle, I think the point you raised could be sustained, and against constitutional objections, but it might present problems. Scrutineers are mainly.... The parties supply them, and keeping them in British Columbia or Newfoundland for a longer period might present practical problems. But in my view, it's not a constitutional issue.
The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, please.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Let's go for things in context, Mr. Kingsley. What's the total cost of running an election in Canada?
Mr. Kingsley: It is approximately $190 million to $195 million.
Ms Catterall: So $1 million is about half a percent -
Mr. Kingsley: That's right.
Ms Catterall: - of the cost of running an election. You know, that's important, but it's not necessarily the determining factor here as to what the right thing is to do for the country.
I was interested in Mr. Harper's questions, because obviously I don't spend as much time in western Canada as he does, but there's not a westerner I know who doesn't find this situation, as we currently have it, offensive.
To me it's less important whether it deters people from going out to vote, or influences how they vote, than if it makes them feel less part of the democratic process. A lot of what we do in this country has to do with making people feel a part of their country.
To me it's palpable when I talk to westerners about this situation. I have never not heard about this from a friend or a relative living in western Canada, or from people I meet when I'm out there on business or at meetings.
So to me it's not a question of whether we should be doing this, but what's the - -
The Chairman: It's hard to do it.
Ms Catterall: - -best way to do it. What are the practical problems of delaying the vote count?
Mr. Kingsley: It's in the polls. It's people either sitting for an hour, or two or three hours, looking at the box and doing nothing.
A voice: Frustrating as hell.
Mr. Kingsley: Either that, or we somehow arrange for the box to be controlled, and they all come back for the count. The inherent difficulties are with respect to party, to candidate representatives being absent while the box is being held, if they all decide they want to leave at a moment in time.
It's a very practical thing. It's not an insurmountable thing, but it's a very practical thing. You've asked what is a practical implication; that's the practical implication.
Ms Catterall: There are going to be some difficulties if we want to try to accommodate the vastness of this country. In your view, what's the best way of doing that? Is it adjusting the times of polling, or is it...?
Mr. Kingsley: Personally, I suspect that it's going to have be a mixture of the different elements, and where in some parts.... Quite frankly, we're coming back to what was mentioned in the report, Strengthening the Foundation.
But quite frankly, I also suspect that even that solution doesn't quite do it. I knew that when I was proposing it. I suspect we're going to have to go to 12 hours of polls being open to accommodate as much as possible as few changes to the core hours of 11 hours, because the polls are open 11 hours now, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time throughout the country.
So I suspect it will be partly that, expanding the hours, taking into account the opening a little later in the east, shutting down a little earlier in the west, especially in British Columbia, and perhaps delaying the count by an hour in the Maritimes or in the Atlantic provinces. It will be something like that.
.1140
In addition, it would be maintaining the provision that makes it illegal to broadcast the results, because I think they will still be out earlier. It will be impossible to accommodate that and reach all the objectives people are striving to achieve and keep those provisions, recognizing that their enforcement will become more and more difficult as time goes by, quite frankly, because of the fact that, as indicated in that report as well, we're beyond the broadcasting mechanisms and technology that have existed so far. We are entering the Internet world.
One of the problems that has occurred in the west not only has to do with the telephone lines - because that's not publishing the results - but with satellite TV. It has been reported to us as a problem where in effect the bars can get the results through satellite TV.
I don't want to pinpoint Americans here as particularly a problem, but there are going to be other people with satellite TV hitting Canadians. It could be the Spanish network producing the results in English, or a French network producing it in French or English.
So all of that becomes quite possible. I think you all recognize it by the way you're nodding your heads. It's there.
Ms Catterall: So recognizing that, the only practical thing is to make sure the results are counted at the same time right across the country.
Mr. Kingsley: Well, as I was indicating, I suspect we're even going to have to compromise on that a little, because to accommodate the 4.5 hours is very difficult. That's a long time, 4.5 hours.
If we go with waiting for all the results to be counted at the same time, then it has the impact I mentioned just a few minutes ago. What do we do with the box? And how do we handle it to your satisfaction when you're a candidate next time in the Maritimes? That's where it will hit principally, as well as in Ontario and Quebec.
Ms Catterall: After all these elections, what are the core hours we have to be most concerned about? What information do you have on the proportion of people who vote in what part of the voting day under the current system?
Mr. Kingsley: In that respect, there is no empirical data that can be obtained about when people turn out. I've asked, and there are as many answers as there are returning officers and members of Parliament in this country.
Ms Catterall: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Kingsley: I wanted to add one further thing I forgot; Mr. Girard just mentioned it to me.
If somehow the core hours are changed and shortened either at the beginning or the tail-end, I will suggest to the committee that it consider the four-hour time off for voting. I will suggest that it be reduced, according to whatever is chopped off, so employers don't face an additional burden in respect of whatever provision you adopt.
The Chairman: That's good advice.
Colleagues, I'm going to ask you to refrain from making too many comments. Just try to make questions and answers, so that we can get this going quickly.
Dr. Pagtakhan, please.
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In fact I had wanted to pursue the question of mixed applications of all the concerns, so in a sense the witness has answered my questions.
The Chairman: Great. Mr. Frazer, please.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we recognize that even if you look at the polls as they now close, an 8 p.m. closing in B.C. means 12:30 a.m. in Newfoundland. Therefore people are well into an extended day.
Also, I think we have to recognize that this isn't a ball game we're watching. This is the choice of the government to govern our country for the next three, four or five years, whatever it turns out to be. So it's rather an important event.
Therefore I would say that one of the most important things we have to do is make it convenient for our voters to vote. It's vital that they have the opportunity to get out. Therefore I hesitate to monkey with the hours they have available to them to exercise their privilege.
Mr. Kingsley, your approach so far has seemed to be that we would delay the counting until right after the polls close. What if you were to consider the following day, if you were to say we'll start the count at 6 a.m. the following morning in B.C., which would be 10:30 a.m. in Newfoundland? Therefore all the results would be in. There would be no early or late polls, and the announcement would be made at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. in B.C., and at 11 a.m. in Newfoundland, or whatever.
.1145
Yes, there's a lot of anticipation, and it does away with the partying after the election and the hoopla for the participants, but, again, we're talking about a serious business here. We're talking about choosing the Government of Canada. Surely, if we could accommodate that by saying all right, the vote is Monday, but the votes will be announced by noon on Tuesday, or whatever it is, would there not be a possibility that we could go that way?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the hands of Parliament here. If they wish to do that, I will institute the measures to do it. All 295 MPs can talk, and consider how this will impact on them as candidates waiting for the results, but it is not an insurmountable obstacle. The proposal that has just been -
Mr. Frazer: With regard to looking after the boxes, I assume there are banks around that have vaults, in which the boxes could be placed and safeguarded. So there wouldn't be any problem after -
Mr. Kingsley: There are arrangements -
Mr. Frazer: That would be your job, of course.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. There are arrangements that can be made. We can reseal the boxes, re-initial the seals. This is all aluminized foil, so it's all controllable. But I leave it to you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, please.
Mr. Langlois: I take it for granted that thanks to Elections Canada in particular, the security of the count and the integrity of the whole process are guaranteed. I do not question it, which allows us to consider several scenarios, given that no one is questioning the integrity of the Canadian election system.
My first question is for Mr. McWhinney and deals with the constitutional issue, under Section 15 of the Charter perhaps, in view of the principle of equality before the law. Bill C-307 proposes to provide for different voting hours. Could one argue in British Columbia that the hours that are being proposed are of a lesser quality or shorter than those provided for in central Canada, since under the amendments put forward by Mrs. Terrana, one could go to vote up to 10 p.m.? That is my first question from a constitutional viewpoint. Citizens in British Columbia seem to be treated differently from those of other Western provinces, of Central Canada, of Atlantic provinces or Newfoundland.
Mr. McWhinney: There is certainly room for a constitutional challenge, although I think it could be denied as not being a real constitutional issue since the matter comes under procedural law.
I believe I have already answered in a sense to the substantive issue. The principle of equality before the law is derived from the British Battles of the 17th century and does not affect election issues. Those issues are dealt with in the first sections of the Charter of Rights. Moreover, when the Supreme Court has agreed to the possibility of a penalty based on Section 5, one could argue that those limitations are reasonable, namely that this difference in treatment is not unfair. One can refer to Socrates, who himself established the principle that equality does not mean equal treatment of different cases.
As far as the substance of the matter is concerned, I think one can win one's case, if need be, to have implemented a piece of legislation such as that being proposed by Mrs. Terrana. I do hope that the Supreme Court will agree to that.
Mr. Langlois: Let us set aside for the moment the constitutional issue. If the time difference is important in the East, in Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and if voting hours are extended until 10 p.m., we will unavoidably be faced with a problem. Some people will have to wait till the next morning for the results. The legislation should provide for some time off the next morning for those people who would have waited for results and gone to bed at 3 or 4 a.m. They will probably need some time off the next morning. Mr. Kingsley may have some figures about that.
.1150
As we move towards Western Canada, do we find a decrease tin the turnout rate? I believe Mr. McWhinney or yourself have briefly dealt with that issue, saying that in the United States, when results are available in the East and as we move westward, the turnout is decreasing.
I have read a few analyses on the 1980 presidential election that showed that there were less people casting a vote, which made it easier for a larger number of Republicans to be elected, mainly in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, because President Carter conceded victory three hours before polls were closed in Western states. I know we do not have a presidential system, but there is still some comparison to be made. Therefore, if the number of voters is decreasing in Manitoba or further west, I would like to know. It is certainly a variable that should be taken into consideration.
I might raise another constitutional issue, but it is just a joke for Mr. McWhinney. Section 11 that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment could perhaps be applied to British Columbia should the province be faced with a government that has not been chosen by Western voters. I think that is a protection in criminal law but not in election law.
[English]
The Chairman: Does somebody wish to reply to Mr. Langlois, and then we'll move to the next question?
Mr. Kingsley.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley: We are checking out with our office what is the turnout as results become available in Western Canada. As soon as those data are being phoned to us, if there is not transcription error, we will make them available to you.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: If it helps, Mr. Chairman, in my riding, over 80% of the eligible voters vote, and that's as far west as you can get. So it doesn't affect us, but that may be the make-up of the riding.
The Chairman: All right. Colleagues, I'm going to try to be vigilant here, because I want to remind you that we are not going to draft this by a committee with the witnesses present. What we're going to need to do obviously is go in camera, and go into some drafting as a committee. So I'm just trying to get as much as we can on the record today, as it deals with Ms Terrana's bill.
Mr. Harb, did you have a question?
Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): Yes. I am very much interested in the principle of what is proposed here. But Mr. Kingsley brought up a very interesting point in his comment, indicating that perhaps we could extend by one hour or two hours before we start counting.
Mr. Kingsley, don't you think that might create some environment for abuse, and a lot of frustration within political campaigns, especially when we are dealing with people who are...? You know, for all I know, they just come in during the election, just to go and count the vote and sign the boxes, in some cases. They are human too, and subject to a lot of stress, dealing in some cases with senior citizens, who don't mind, for example, putting in the six or seven hours. But locking them up and putting in an extra two hours might put some undue pressure on them. That's one question for you.
The second question is with regard to the additional time we wanted to keep those boxes locked up. Wouldn't that incur costs in the sense that either way any kind of saving we are making as a result of the changes in hours...?
Mr. Kingsley: So far, what is being discussed does not result in any cost savings at all, anywhere. So to answer your second question, what we are talking about is the possibility of additional costs.
To answer your first question, my vantage point is that of the person responsible for running the process. That was the answer I gave in respect of the impact on electoral workers working for Elections Canada. The vantage point you bring is that of a candidate, and I think it is a very valid one that only you can address very directly.
The concerns you've raised are quite fair, they're quite human, and this is what I was alluding to, in terms of the electoral workers, if they face looking at a box for four and a half hours. I think that was a bit of a caricature on my part, but it is part of what would be happening.
In the scenario that was described in the report here, that's why that would only occur for approximately one hour. I think that would be the break point or the stretch point that would still be reasonable. Beyond that, we get into a difficulty zone.
.1155
Mr. Harb: Even the one hour has greater potential for disaster in some areas. I know some candidate may or may not have scrutineers in those voting areas, so it puts a lot of pressure on volunteers, and on candidates and campaigns.
I'm speaking from personal experience. For 17 years I've been knocking on doors, scrutineering, and all of that. I think it would be a recipe for absolute disaster if we were to proceed and keep the boxes idle for any length of time, because it would create am environment that could breed disaster, in a sense.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harb.
Mr. Lee, do you have a short question?
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I do. The background to Ms Terrana's bill in based in part on a premise that the blackout is not fully effective, and doesn't work.
As I look at it, if you're a citizen, and you're getting ready to vote late in the day in British Columbia, you're not going to walk into the election results because of the blackout, but if you want to find them out you certainly can. You can phone your brother-in-law in Quebec City.
Could you comment on the premise that if it's not broken, don't try to fix it? Can you comment on where the blackout isn't working for the average citizen, and how it might be remedied so that the average citizen, who's not keen on finding out the election results, isn't going to find out?
Mrs. Terrana: Okay, let me tell you that in 1993 I went to visit a polling station at 5:15 p.m. They had this person who came in and said ``Anna, we have won in the Atlantic provinces, and we are winning big in Quebec and Ontario''. This was 5:15 p.m. B.C. time. I think that can really put off a lot of people, and it does come in. One way or another, it does come in.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a couple of things about what I heard earlier. First of all, the extension to the 12 hours may cost more money, but it might be the solution, because it's not that it is staying closed until 10 a.m. I understand that the Atlantic provinces complain about cutting the hours in the morning. So that would be 10 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.
It will not matter to British Columbia if the results come in from the Atlantic provinces. There are only 32 seats, and we will have 34. Really Quebec and Ontario are the big concern. If we have to cut the hours in Quebec and Ontario, and have the results even half an hour before we close the polls, we are going to defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do.
The last thing I want to say is about the day after. Sure, it's supposed to be.... In Italy they do that, but again I imagine there are lots of people who are anxious, and we also are only 30 million people, compared to Italy's 60 million people and a much more complex way of voting.
The Chairman: They have governments a lot more often then we do in Canada.
Mrs. Terrana: Fifty-five in fifty years.
The Chairman: Madam Dalphond-Guiral, please.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Obviously a large country brings about some problems.
I would like to bring to the attention of our witnesses the following case. Among the staff of Elections Canada are of course the deputy returning officer and the Secretary who are being paid while candidates' representatives are not. We are dealing here with democracy. Essentially that is our ultimate goal. I quite agree with the principles of democracy, equality and all that, but I wonder whether we can consider asking candidates' representatives who are volunteers to work for two, three or four hours more in order to make sure that everybody is being treated equally without giving them some kind of compensation.
In Quebec, candidates' representatives are being paid, and have been for a long time, contrary to those who work in a federal election. There is a problem. One can ask people to work and be assured of their moral qualities, skills and vigilance, but I think we should not ask too much. Considering that an election already costs us $199 million, we can ask ourselves how much more it would cost to allow for an adequate and reasonable compensation for candidates' representatives.
We can indeed expect that they will have to wait for some time looking at the boxes. We might consider some kind of incentive or compensation.
Mrs. Terrana: You are right. We have also discussed about volunteers.
.1200
We all know that all candidates cannot rely on as many volunteers as they wish. It is also a matter of security and fairness for volunteer campaign workers. You have also referred to another problem, the issue of compensation. It should be dealt with by this Committee. Your comments are very relevant since they deal with an issue that I am raising as well.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I have one question. I'm glad Mr. Kingsley addressed the possible solution of really mixing solutions, both doing delays in the count and staggering hours to minimize inconvenience. However, when you said that, you raised the issue of how this would interact with the blackout.
Let me put this to you as a different approach: provided that the counting doesn't begin in Ontario and Quebec before the polls close in B.C. - and I agree with Madam Terrana that this is the critical thing - what difference would it make if we lifted the blackout entirely?
Say voters have partial results from Atlantic Canada, or say they may even have full results. What difference does that make in terms of the problem we're trying to solve? They're not choosing the government. This is a minor point.
Frankly, I don't know how many voters would sit in front of the television to wait for the results, and then run down to the polls with 15 minutes to go anyway.
But let's say we had no blackout for Atlantic Canada. They count an hour earlier, and the results are available. So what?
Mr. Kingsley: Well, I think the proviso that was introduced by Mr. Harper about the count results not flowing to British Columbia from Quebec and Ontario, through the count being delayed, or however, or the hours being such, also offers a viable alternative.
The only point I want to make is that I think it was in 1988 - in 1993? - that, based on the results in Atlantic Canada, the media were already reporting the Liberal majority.
The Chairman: Not in 1988, they weren't.
Mr. Kingsley: No.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Kingsley: That's why I corrected myself, and said 1993.
I must provide you with complete, total advice; this is what I'm doing. But I've indicated this also ties in with comments Mrs. Terrana was making herself, that if the results were to come in from Atlantic Canada, it would not be a problem, because of the number of seats.
Now, if ever the configuration of the country changes, and the vast majority of the population is in the east of Canada, then I think we'll have to revisit that issue.
The Chairman: But until that time you're all welcome to New Brunswick.
Mr. Kingsley: There is now a viable alternative as well, in that solution.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Just for clarification from Mr. Kingsley, you've said that we'd have people looking at this box for three or four hours, or something. Why is the fixation on that? Why not leave it open, and let them...? If people can come and vote, why can't they come and vote during that period? Why do you feel there has to be a sitting period when people look at the box?
Mr. Kingsley: Other than the fact that Mr. McWhinney raised the possibility that hours of opening could be different from one part of the country to the other.... I've always accepted the opposite as being almost a prerequirement. That is to say, if the voting hours are 11 hours in the east, they should be 11 hours in the west. So I've never fixed in my mind the solution you've just proposed, where the polls would be open 14 hours in the east and 11 hours in the west.
But if that is constitutional, then the only other issue becomes one of...you know, if volunteers are tired after seven or eight hours, I think regular workers who are paid get tired as well, and that's a consideration you will have to bear in mind.
Mr. Speaker: But there is this trade-off?
.1205
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. This is why I've proposed to the committee that a consideration be given to trade-offs in various sectors, keeping in mind that there's a half-hour there, a practical half-hour.
I won't guarantee that somebody won't come out with results within 20 minutes. I won't guarantee that. We'll do what we can, but the normal time is about half an hour before the first polls start to come out.
I was indicating that there may be a balance among all these factors.
The Chairman: I think there is a constitutional problem, Mr. Speaker, with leaving the polls open in one part of the country longer than another part of the country, but that will be something we'll have to check. Jamie is going to check that.
Dr. Pagtakhan, we'll conclude with you.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again pursuing the question of mixing these various concerns, obviously I would like to learn from your experience, to give us an understanding of priorities of concern.
I have heard that the one concern that motivated Ms Terrana was a sense of alienation in the west.
Concerns have been raised about the integrity of the ballot. This would mean that the full participation of citizens and even the trust in the process itself may be jeopardized. Now, that would constitute delaying it to tomorrow, the accessibility in the morning and the evening, and voting time.
The third factor is the concern for volunteers, the volunteers' time.
The fourth factor is cost to the workers and to the process.
The Chairman: Dr. Pagtakhan, I'm sorry to interrupt. We're just trying to conclude here. Do you have a question for Ms Terrana or Mr. Kingsley, just to clarify?
Mr. Pagtakhan: The question I propose, Mr. Chair, is whether not to indicate the factors I was about to ask for.
The Chairman: I'm sorry; I apologize for interrupting.
Mr. Pagtakhan: So with the various factors, Mr. Kingsley, where will you put the greatest priority - -
The Chairman: We have a sound problem now, I'm sorry.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Should I repeat?
The Chairman: No, we can hear you well. It's not.... We'll suspend for a minute.
[Technical difficulties - Editor]