Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 41 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, December 9, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:38 a.m. to give consideration to the Regulations pursuant to section 118 of the Firearms Act.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: This morning we will continue our study of the regulations which resulted from the passage of the Firearms Act in the fall of last year.
Our witnesses this morning are from the Motion Picture Studio Production Technicians, Local 891.
We welcome you this morning and invite you to proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Tom Adair, Business Representative, Motion Picture Studio Production Technicians, Local 891: Thank you. I am honoured to be here today. This is the first time I have presented at a meeting such as this.
I represent approximately 90 per cent of the people in British Columbia who are involved in 90 per cent of the filming there. The International Alliance of Theatre and Stage Employees, IATSE, is the largest organization of film and stage technicians in the world. There are approximately 90,000 members in North America.
Film makers attempt to maintain a low profile in the community. Advertising our presence encourages the formation of crowds, which we must then monitor and control. Our tendency to maintain a low profile has led to our presence here today. We are calling upon you to recognize our concerns.
In particular, those in our industry involved in the supply of firearms as props wish to remain fairly low profile, for obvious reasons.
I believe that Mr. McLeod and I are the only people speaking to the committee on this matter. You may be wondering why there is no representation from employers who are also directly affected by this legislation. The answer is contained within a personality trait of the industry which is illustrated by the phrase, "My indecision is final."
I assure you that if the concerns we raise today are not addressed when they surface during a filming situation, you will hear from the employers. Like most procrastinators, they will squeal loudly at that point. However, by that time it will be much more difficult to solve the problem and protect the interests of the industry.
I estimate that in the current year our industry will contribute $2 billion worth of direct spending in Canada. Based on worldwide trends, expansion should be at 15 per cent per year for the next few years, as the 500-channel universe and the information highway continue to unfold.
To give you some idea of how the economics are broken down by region, British Columbia represents approximately $600 million in direct spending, with 80 per cent of that production being U.S. service-based industry, most of which is concentrated in Vancouver. That includes features, movies of the week, and series production. The remaining 20 per cent is Canadian, generally low-budget, indigenous Canadian production.
The prairie provinces represent in the neighbourhood of $100 million worth of production, which is predominantly Alberta-based. Due to regional incentive plans, approximately 65 per cent of that production is indigenous Canadian-based production.
Ontario has approximately $650 million in direct spending in the current year, and that is concentrated in Toronto. Ontario has about a 50/50 split in production, but it also benefits from regional incentive plans.
I estimate that Quebec has approximately $350 million in direct spending. Some 75 per cent of that production is Canadian indigenous production due to regional and cultural incentive plans.
The Maritimes, which is starting to have more production, could easily top $50 million in the current year, probably split 50/50. It also has regional incentive plans which encourage Canadian production because they encourage the use of Canadian writers, talent, and directors.
There is also a considerable amount of spending in the theatrical end of the business. However, I am not aware of the figures. For example, Miss Saigon and other big shows in Toronto of that nature are also directly affected by this legislation because of the theatrical use of firearms.
In British Columbia, approximately 75 per cent of the productions that we make use at some point during production some type of firearm, either restricted or non-restricted, or a prohibited device. When I say "use", that could mean use for one day, part of one day, or for months, depending on the type of film or television being done. When we look at these regulations, we must provide for this lawful activity to continue.
We do not use live ammunition but guns which are modified to fire blank cartridges. Not addressing these issues will imperil our industry because of the necessity to use, at some point during the filming process, some type of firearm that is covered by these regulations. If we fail to address the Firearms Act through a simple mechanism such as the use of the words "for motion picture use only," loss of employment will result. There is nothing contemplated under the current act for motion picture use only.
The firearms regulation system provides no increase in public safety and could result in the loss of millions of dollars of economic activity. I do not see how this will benefit our country or its citizens. Without clear guidelines, the economic costs of an ill-defined regulatory process can be immense.
Our major areas of concern are regulatory authority, licensing, and replica firearms.
We need a regulatory authority which provides definition and access. We, and those who will enforce these regulations, must have accessibility and consistency to be able to comply with the regulations. In our mind, these regulations provide neither. In order to comply, we must know what the requirements are, and this has not been fleshed out in the present regulations. This causes us a great amount of concern.
The Firearms Act, the former Bill C-68, repeatedly confers authority on the chief firearms officer who is designated in writing by the provincial minister of the province via sections 98 and 99 of the act. The CFO may designate firearms officers to perform duties of the CFO except for personally issuing the business licences contemplated for our industry. They must be dealt with personally by the chief firearms officer. Who will perform these other duties? Who will bear the costs of these other duties at the provincial level? Thus far, no one at the provincial level has said that they will pay for or designate them. The regulations may address the issuance of licences, but they do not recognize the reality on the ground when peace officers are actually enforcing an act.
Mr. McLeod and I have spent considerable time going over the act and the regulations. I think we know a fair amount more about how the regulations will come into being than a regular peace officer on the street who may come up to a production and see what he perceives to be a dangerous weapon in use.
The impact of the regulations will soon be felt, as they are to be implemented on January 1, 1998. It seems reasonable to ask how they will be delegated and how they will flow out of the system at this stage.
Multiple access points would benefit our industry. It is contemplated that the CFO is the only designated authority to deal with licences. We have suggested in our letter that the RCMP would be quite capable of this task. Under the regulations that have been published, there seems to be a number of other sources of licensing.
In British Columbia, over the last few years, we have been involved in two other major regulatory reviews concerning electrical safety issues and workers' compensation. These processes have taken years, not months. This process, on the other hand, seems to be taking months, not years, which causes us some concern. We are somewhat worried that, because of the quickness of the process, our concerns will not be addressed. The implications of legislation concerning workplace safety and electrical issues are widespread. They affected our industry across the board. There was a great deal of consternation on production levels when the electrical safety standards were introduced and with the workers' compensation rules.
Under section 117 of the Firearms Act, the government may formulate regulations for specific activities associated with any industry and, specifically, our industry, which is a suggestion that we should like to make. By using procedures presently in place and by refining them, safety can be assured through the tracking of firearms and licensing processes. Regulations and licensing could be based on "for motion picture use only" as a limiting factor which could be controlled. This would allow the holder to obtain, transport, and use firearms and devices for motion picture use only.
Requirements would include the holder provide secure and safe storage for weapons during transport to and from the set and at all times when the weapon is not actually in use. Applying ill-defined regulations could spell disaster. Standardized guidelines for regulators will benefit them and us.
In addition, a country-wide set of regulations or guidelines also prevents a patchwork quilt of requirements developing across Canada. Given the nature of the CFO's responsibilities, they can all basically write their own rules.
We are an interprovincial business. Certainly productions go from Alberta to B.C. and from B.C. to Alberta. If there are no guidelines, you must make two sets of rules for dealing with the same thing because of the way the act is put together. Once again, standardized guidelines would benefit regulators and ourselves.
The transportation as outlined in the regulations is also problematic. Section 11(g) of the regulations requires immediate reporting to the CFO when a prohibited firearm other than a prohibited handgun is moved from one location to another. Locations where motion pictures, television and theatrical productions occur are of a temporary nature, and multiple locations on any one day are commonplace. What is the interpretation of "location" as it applies to a shooting site? What will be the interpretation of "immediately"? The implications for a business or an individual are clear: they would lose their license if they do not comply with the regulations.
The draft regulations indicated that the approval would be in writing. That seem to have been dropped out of the present regulations, which we are pleased to see. However, the system as set up within the regulations now is too vague because we do not know what will be required. When it comes to location, must you immediately report to the CFO when you go from Fifth Street and Broadway to Sixth Street and Broadway? Is it two blocks or three blocks? What are the ramifications?
Section 12 deals with the transportation of prohibited weapons such as switchblade knives, brass knuckles, and so on; prohibited devices, which are replicas; and prohibited ammunition. In the previous section, there was a relaxation on transportation. You did not have to seal the boxes. It made it a bit easier to transport firearms within the film and television industry. In section 12, there is not that exemption, unless it is applied through another method within the regulations or act which I may have missed. It seems passing strange that you would have more stringent regulations to do with rubber guns and switchblade knives than you would for a prohibited firearm, which could be a full semi-automatic AK47.
As these requirements are written, they hamstring businesses and individuals as well as the CFOs from fulfilling their duties under the act. There is no appeal process other than that provided through sections 74 through 81 of Bill C-68, and there is no appreciable increase in public safety. To be effective, these regulations must provide guidance to both regulators and to those in the film industry.
The practical reality is that at some point a peace officer, while trying to fulfil his duty, will enforce the broader-brush approach of the act and shut down production because there will be no easy way to explain our legitimacy. That will cost a great deal of money, because production costs run between $100,000 to $150,000 a day. This is not a vehicle to encourage production in Canada.
Another area of concern is the licensing. My previous concerns regarding extras and actors, people who are on set and do not have licences, are now addressed in the act as long they are under supervision. This is no longer a direct concern for me.
Any licensing system should be simple and effective.
Licensing regulations are needed which may include the registration of a production company. Production companies are commonly formed on an off-the-shelf, one-time basis for production. They form and die within two months. If you want to track firearms related to certain production and be able to identify them, the production companies should be part of that process. They are formed on an individual basis for tax reasons because they are just one-of productions.
The production manager, who is the main component within a production company, should be one of the people involved in that registration. This will give you the corporate responsibility and the name of the main contact person on the show, their address, home and work phone number, and it would be easy to get in contact with them.
The registration process should also include the name of the licensed individuals or businesses in the employ of the production company responsible for the supervision and control of the firearms, plus license numbers, class, address, home and work phone numbers, as well as a list of firearms and locations where prohibited and restricted firearms and devices will be stored and used.
We would also hope that locations as we envision them would be interpreted broadly enough not to create chaos. An interpretation of "for use in the lower mainland of Vancouver" is obviously much more workable in a practical sense to people working in the industry than reporting every time you change from block to block.
This kind of system will provide for identification of those in control of firearms, monitoring and tracking, and, if it is specific for the use in motion pictures, television and theatrical productions, can and will limit any type of public safety issues.
Remember that we never actually use live ammunition or projectiles. This is not currently contemplated under the licensing avenues as we have seen them written. The cost of $1,000 for a license that may only be needed for one day is not something that I can use effectively to encourage business in Canada. It may be something that could be contemplated under Schedule II, item 18, but the activities are not defined under that item in Schedule II.
Another large issue is that of replica firearms. For the motion picture industry, the regulation of replica firearms and devices is extremely problematic. Under Bill C-68, replica firearms are classified as prohibited devices. We use them precisely because they are replica firearms -- devices which are designed or intended to exactly resemble, with near precision, a firearm but which in themselves are not firearms. Bill C-68 needs to have a clear definition; our industry needs to have something safer than the real thing.
The controls imposed on replicas are more stringent than those imposed on real guns because they are prohibited devices. The regulatory solution here again seems to be to create a set of regulations which deals with them as a particular variant for use specifically in the motion picture, television, and theatrical industry, subject to their own set of regulations. A set of regulations designed specifically for our industry would be the best way to deal with them.
There also does not appear to be within the regulations any license classification for replicas as prohibited devices. This may be coming in the next stage of regulation, but, under the current regulations as I have read them, I do not see a licensing classification for prohibited devices for an individual to use.
A sensible solution would be to create a classification of license available to individuals who are an employee of a business engaged in motion picture, television and theatrical production which will limit the use of replicas in the course of employment. They would still be under the supervision of a business or an individual licensed to supply or possess prohibited replica firearms and devices in the motion picture, television and theatrical industry. On-site monitoring and adherence to regulations could be reasonably left in the hands of a business or individual that has fulfilled higher and more stringent licensing requirements. By regulation, these licences are not easily obtained. If they are negligent, they stand to lose their licenses and their livelihoods.
We also encourage consideration of inclusions which permit individuals to continue to deal with props without the necessity of becoming fully licensed businesses. In British Columbia, as opposed to the rest of Canada, individual props persons act as firearms managers. In the rest of the country, there are armourers who provide that as a service to the industry.
The CFO issues all the licences, and under the system people would not be able to be employed or carry on any activities contrary to the regulations. We must find a workable solution which satisfies the needs of employers under the requirements of the act, or they will simply take their bags of cash and leave.
The Chair: The regulatory drafters appeared before us last week. At that point, they indicated to us that there were a number of regulations that had not yet been drafted. Have you had any indication from them that there will be, in that new set of draft regulations which are in addition to the ones already received, any special regulations for the motion picture industry?
Mr. Adair: I must compliment the staff who have been dealing with us on this issue. They are very aware of the problems. They have indicated to me over the phone that there would be specific guidelines for replicas, but there has been no indication to me that there would be a specific set of regulations written for our industry other than modifying the regulations to be able to allow our industry to exist under the regulations as designed for everyone.
The problem that I have with that system is that, on the ground, when you are trying to explain that to someone, it will stop your ongoing production.
Senator Gigantès: You make a persuasive case on many issues. Perhaps you could facilitate the job of regulators by modifying some of the guns you use. We are talking of guns now. I know there are other problems with switchblades, et cetera. Instead of having a replica of a gun, you can have a gun through the barrel of which you put a screw. You could use the gun all the time. If a policeman came around, you could show him that there is a screw there. A projectile cannot pass through if it is done properly. You could have a collection of such guns. You need not go to the trouble of manufacturing replicas, so you escape those regulations. Smoke will come out, but no projectile.
Mr. Adair: Mr. McLeod could beteter answer that question. He works with replicas, blank firearms, and firearms which use compressed air.
Senator Gigantès: Before he answers, I should like to know who these guns belong to. Are they rented from someone? Does the production company buy them?
Mr. Adair:There is normally a variety of sources. Rental is generally the way of the business. It depends on the nature of the production. If they need it for one day or a short term, they will often rent. If they need it for a longer term, sometimes they will buy because the cost of buying will, in the long run, be cheaper than the cost of renting. If a rented prop becomes damaged, they would have to pay for it, so it is sometimes better to buy for that reason as well.
Senator Gigantès: Buying would not be a problem. Having it drilled would not be an expensive proposition. A private entrepreneur could stock some of these things with barrels which have this device which stops a projectile from going through.
Mr. Neil McLeod, Motion Picture Prop Master, Six Angles Production Inc., Motion Picture Studio Production Technicians, Local 891: I am a working motion picture prop master. I operate an incorporated company. I provide firearms to the productions on which I work as prop master. I also rent firearms to other productions.
Over recent years, I was the weapons specialist for Legends of the Fall. We put together a World War I sequence involving 850 extras, all shooting vintage rifles, coming out of the trenches, approaching machine-gun fire from period World War I machine guns, all of which fired blank ammunition. We filmed that over a period of four or five nights in Alberta. In the entire week of filming, 24 hours a day, we had two units going. The only injury suffered by anyone was a sprained ankle, despite actors charging through the mud with rifles and bayonets.
I have worked on several other productions involving a lot of gun work. One example is the first Stakeout movie with Richard Dreyfuss. I did a Jean Claude van Damme action movie called Time Cop. I have done productions with no guns at all, such as Little Women with Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder. I worked on Jennifer 8 with Lance Henriksen and Andy Garcia. Lance Henriksen is now the retired FBI agent in the television series Millenium, for which I did the pilot.
In this presentation, if I indicate something which shows that I have misunderstood the regulations, I would hope someone would correct me. It is very possible. I did not get a copy of this until last Wednesday because, apparently, it takes two weeks to get an envelope from Ottawa to White Rock, B.C. Perhaps we can address that problem the next time I come back to testify.
I am here today to appeal for a reasonable and flexible interpretation of this act and the associated regulations, particularly for our industry. We certainly are not above the law, and we have no intention whatsoever of compromising public safety in this country. Our respect for a citizen's right to safety is as high as anyone else's. We are a self-regulating industry. Safety is a huge and specific concern. We often rehearse a sequence three or four times longer than the filming takes specifically because of safety reasons.
Our security for the sensitive items that we possess and carry and transport is exceptional. Our security record is exceptional. Therefore, I would appreciate someone looking at our industry as a specialized user which perhaps is in a category unlike anyone else. We have a vast quantity of different materials with different levels of sophistication and technology, a collection which is probably only surpassed by police and military forces.
When I review Bill C-68 and the associated regulations, I find much which encourages me. Over the past several months, we have been consulted on this. We have worked together to develop something which is pretty good at solving many of the problems.
The Canadian Firearms Centre has done an excellent job in sorting through a massive amount of material to produce regulations which have the least negative impact on those involved in the legal use of firearms in this country. I am honoured to participate in this high calibre drafting of important public policy.
I wish to draw a distinction between the nature of our industry as it has developed in Western Canada as compared to eastern Canada, Quebec, and Ontario, in particular.
The pattern that has developed over the years in Ontario and Quebec is that there are specific companies engaged in providing firearms and weaponry to the motion picture industry. In most cases, that is the sole purpose of those companies.
It has been much broader than that in Western Canada. For example, I provide weapons to the motion picture industry. I also do productions which do not involve weapons at all. We are freelancers, and we take the work that we choose to do when we are available to do so.
The procedure in British Columbia and Alberta has developed to the point where it is nearly an ideal working situation for all parties involved. It was developed by direct consultation between the CFOs and members of our industry, including the RCMP, to create a system of permits which is highly effective. It is very fast. You provide information and send a fax to the CFO and the RCMP, and you pick up your permit 24 hours later. This is a result of cooperation between the various parties over the years.
In Western Canada, there are three ways that firearms are provided to motion picture filming. One of the methods is very similar to the way it happens in Ontario and Quebec. If the prop master on that particular production does not feel comfortable with handling the weapons himself due to his level of training or interest or otherwise, he then contracts a weapons supply company. That weapons supply company does the entire production, getting the requirements for that production from the prop master in consultation with the director and so on. These items are usually rented by the week. If it is a long production, it can be negotiated on a production rental for the entire period of time.
The second method is that the particular prop person on a show may have all the equipment, the guns, and the firearms in their own inventory, as well as the expertise and the interest to go ahead and do the production themselves. That was a little common a few years ago than it is now because of the growth of the industry. The proportion of people working that way is less because there is more production going on. Nevertheless, that has been most economical for production companies because the overhead for individual prop person, even though they own all of the equipment, is considerably lower because they are not operating a store-front operation and paying all of the costs.
The third way of providing firearms to the motion picture industry on a particular show is where the prop master, rather than bringing everything out of his own inventory or just hiring it all, will assemble all of the requirements from various sources, including purchasing from retail gun shops. As a result of the cost of a rental on a particular firearm over the period of production of 10 or 12 weeks, it sometimes makes more economical sense to purchase the items and then sell them off at the end of the production. That will become more difficult to do under the new act.
We also import equipment from Britain and the United States that is not as readily available in Canada -- for example, Browning machine guns and World War I and II vintage weapons. What I refer to in my presentation as implements of mass destruction are rented from companies in Los Angeles which have been in business since the 1920s.
Every prop person working in the motion picture industry in Vancouver has a firearms acquisition certificate which allows them to be in possession of any of this material. If they own any of the material, they have the registration certificates. In order to move the material that they own and rent from other people or businesses, we have been using the C302 form issued by the RCMP under the direction of the CFO, which lists the type of thing that you are moving around but is not specific to serial numbers. It is very difficult in our industry to be that specific at the time you apply for a permit. The specifics include the type of material you are moving around, where it is going from, where it is going to, and what will happen during the time that you have it. The permit is issued based on the FAC, your successful completion of a firearms safety course, including the safety course developed by the motion picture industry for the motion picture industry and a letter from the production company indicating to the registrar and the CFO that you are, in fact, the prop person responsible for gun handling on that production and what the dates are.
There are three issues in the proposed legislation which will be very troublesome for this industry: the scope of licensing, the prohibition of small handguns, and the prohibition of replicas.
As the new licensing regulations are written with the various prohibitions, there are only two options for motion picture prop persons to continue to service the industry in the way it has developed in our region, and each of them is expensive. The first option is that the prop master or production company will hire a licensed firearms business to do the entire portion of the project, and the second option is that the individual prop people get their own firearms business license.
Presently, between 30 and 35 people would be interested in this, all of whom would be applying for prohibited firearms business licences in order to continue earning their livelihood in the way that they have. Both of these options would be expensive for both the prop person and the production companies. Option two will also mean a stack of applications on the CFO's desk.
It is clear that only a licensed business will be eligible for access to materials which allow it to serve this industry with the speed and flexibility required. Unless we can build in more flexible options such as partial licences, prop masters will either become licensed businesses or production companies will pay the extra cost to continually hire licensed businesses.
It is currently much less expensive for production companies than it will be if these regulations are adopted. The individual prop person is already under contract to the production company. Therefore, his fees are a given. If he can supply the production with what it needs, the company saves the cost of employees of the firearms business. In addition, the rental rates charged by a firearms business to cover expensive overhead are much higher than a prop person would normally charge.
Individual prop masters could spend the $1,000 for the licence and the $5,000 for two electronic security systems required by the regulations, one on their permanent storage facility and one on the truck which goes from production to production and to hire various people to help them with the business. However, they may not work on any productions which require guns for that entire year. That happens with great regularity. Individual prop people could become involved with a company which produces disease-of-the-week movies, and there may not be a gun involved in anything they do for the entire year. For that year, the license would be a complete waste of money. There would be a waste of government resources to process the paperwork. It would also jeopardize their chances of being able to obtain a license in the future.
Senator Gigantès: Would you explain that?
Mr. McLeod: Our CFO indicated to me at the last meeting we attended that one of the criteria for issuing prohibited firearms business licences would be the level of activity of that business. In other words, a company which does one or two productions a year involving prohibited firearms is not likely to be able to obtain a license.
That brings me to another question which I hope will be addressed in the regulations as they develop. There is no mention in these regulations as to the minimum level of qualifications to obtain a prohibited firearms license. We would like some clarification on that.
This legislation make some significant changes to the hardware that prop persons will be eligible to possess and, therefore, will have a major impact on the business. The act now classifies as prohibited two types of small handguns that are commonly used as movie props: those with short barrels and those of small calibre. I am referring to barrel length under 105 millimetres and the .25 and .32 calibre handguns, which, unfortunately, generically seem to fall into the category of the "Saturday night special," which is a negative term that is somewhat unfortunate. I do think that there are appropriate uses for those items.
Without some flexibility in these regulations, they could be devastating to our industry and would change the way some movies are made. It definitely would change where some of these movies are made.
I should like to describe a typical scenario to explain what I mean. Presently, the retail price of a .32 calibre pistol is approximately $100. It would rent from a firearm business for approximately $50 per month. If the prop person on a production happens to own one, he or she could rent it to the production company for approximately $35 per month because their overhead is lower than the store-front business. However, guns of this calibre are now prohibited. Therefore, they can only be owned by a licensed business. The production must rent this item from a business unless the prop person happens to have owned one prior to January of 1995, in which case he or she is allowed to keep it. Since it is prohibited, it must be accompanied to and from the movie set by an employee or the owner of the business. The rental rate will then have to be changed from a monthly rate to a daily rate because the gun must be taken back and forth to the business premises at the end of each day. The monthly rental rate would change to a daily rate of $20.
An employee of the business will be required to be present all day, whether the gun is actually used for not. For example, you might never get to the scene in which the gun is required. A typical day on the set is about 14 hours. The cost of a business employee for one day, including overtime, is about $385. The daily cost of this little gun will change from about $1.50 this year to a staggering $407.50 per day for a $100 pistol. It gets worse. I should like to explain a scheduling situation which arises when you must have that gun on the set every day that the actor who uses that gun works for the entire production. At $407 per day, you get some notion of the cost impact on a production company.
Another issue which must be addressed concerns replica guns. Essentially, replica guns were created for collectors. The movie industry grabbed them up immediately because they offered an option to having real guns on the set all the time. The other major use of replica guns is in stunts. The guns that we use for that, if I may pass some around, are made of rubber. You can not have someone jumping out of a window from the third floor of a hotel room or being pushed out of a window on a third floor hotel room with a real gun in his or her hand. You cannot hit someone over the head in a hand-to-hand fight with a real gun, for safety reasons.
I am passing around a variety of different rubber props that we use. This is a rubber hand grenade, and this is a rubber replica gun. This particular one is made of hard rubber. It is heavy enough so that if it has to be thrown into the lake, it will sink rather than float on the surface and ruin the shot. This particular replica is a replica of an antique. It is not prohibited, nor is this one, which is also a replica of an antique. However, these others are all prohibited devices now.
There is absolutely no way that a stunt involving firearms, involving people running down the street, involving people jumping off balconies, or involving people chasing someone into and out of an automobile can be done without rubber replicas. These stunts involve huge safety concerns.The cowboys you see ride into town on a horse, jump off their horse, run into the saloon, get shot, and fall down always carry rubber guns.
The Chair: You realize that you are shattering our illusions here.
Mr. McLeod: When you actually see this on screen, the rubber device is always moving. You will never see it frozen on the screen so that you can identify what it is. We require props of various levels of hardness for that reason.
Once a weapon is chosen for the lead actor in a movie, that weapon is then taken to a prop manufacturing shop where it is cast in hard rubber, or plaster in some cases, and then copies are made in a various degrees of hardness and weight, depending on the application. We always get a soft, medium and hard prop. In some stunts that involve water, the camera will not be on the prop gun when it hits the water. In those cases, you want it to float so you can get it back. However, when the camera is on it and it hits the water, it must sink. You would not want to do that with a $1,000 gun.
This summer, I worked on a production in Seattle which was set in 1972. It involved several scenes from the 1972 Olympics in Munich where Arab terrorists stormed an Israeli dorm and assassinated Israeli athletes. We did that entire sequence, including the German police, the German army, the Olympic security guards and the terrorists, with only two real rifles. Every other gun in that sequence was a replica.I brought all of them down from Canada. To have done that with real weapons would have meant about eight times the cost.
In summary, I believe that we need a licence or a condition on a licence or a permit on a licence which is issued to individuals working in the motion picture industry who qualify as eligible to possess temporarily specific, prohibited materials such as grandfathered small-barrel and small-calibre revolvers, replica firearms, high-capacity magazines and other items that by themselves require no highly technical training and are no more inherently dangerous than restricted firearms.
This type of license would not allow the holder to be in possession of blank-firing, fully-automatic weapons and implements of mass destruction. That would continue to be under a prohibited licensed business rental situation. The licence could be clearly stamped "motion picture or theatrical use only." In other words, if the holder of that licence was not working on a motion picture or a project related to working on a motion picture or a theatrical production, their licence would be invalid, meaning they could not get a permit or an authorization to transfer. They could not get an import permit. In any case, they would not be applying for import permits, but they could not get an authorization to transport or to transfer if they were not working on a motion picture project. The holder would not be eligible to own or permanently acquire any class of prohibited weapon for which they were not otherwise eligible according to the act, depending on their circumstances. Documentation from employers would also be required.
Senators, we must find a solution to the short-barrel, small-calibre replica gun prohibition problem or productions will take their work elsewhere. Replica guns in particular should be removed from the prohibition. Millions of dollars could be taken from the Canadian economy as a result of government overreaction to a couple of rare incidents. Public education can ameliorate those particular problems -- that is, one should know better than to point something that looks like a gun at someone who has a gun. Placing unworkable restrictions on a $2 billion industry will have a much greater effect on a greater number of Canadians than the rare misuse of an inert object by one ignorant individual.
Thank you for your time, senators.
Senator Gigantès: You said you discussed this with officials and that you found them capable of showing some understanding. Congratulations. Did this make you hopeful that they might do something?
Mr. McLeod: That is why I am here. I am hopeful that in at least one of these areas there will be something encouraging on which to plan. There must be, or we will fold our tents.
Senator Gigantès: The other thing is the cost of the licence and the security systems. Did I understand you correctly that the licence would be $1,000 and another $5,000 for two security systems, one on the truck and one on your premises? That is $6,000. Surely it will be amortized over a number of years.
Mr. McLeod: The license fee is per year.
Senator Gigantès: But not the security systems.
Mr. McLeod: That all must be in place in order to abide by the regulations so as to start your business.
Senator Gigantès: You are saying that this is a barrier to entry into the business. The way you keep someone new from coming into the business is you increase the cost for someone coming into the business.
Mr. McLeod: To clarify, there is a condition whereby if the CFO is satisfied that your security provisions are as good as the minimum requirement, even though they are not specifically according to the minimum requirement, you would be approved. However, with respect to an electronic security system, there are only a few interpretations of what that really means.
Senator Milne: We were assured by the department officials who were at our last hearing that this is merely the first set of regulations and that there will be further regulations on different parts of this act. They talked about at least two more sets coming to us in the future. Since you have been in touch with department officials, perhaps there will be something coming out in these further regulations specifically applying to your industry.
We, in this committee, are going through a review process. We cannot amend these regulations. They are put forward for us to review and to comment upon. As far as comments or recommendations from this committee are concerned, would you be content or happy if the Senate recommended that the government take special care in its drafting to ensure that the needs of the motion picture industry are accommodated? This may be a way around the problem that we are in right now where we do not know if these are the final regulations applying to your industry.
Mr. Adair: That would address the overall issue the way that we want it addressed. Because of the problem I ran into in getting involved with the electrical safety review and the workers' compensation review, that is our wish. However, in a practical sense, regulations are implemented in ways which change direction. Given the interlocking nature of the way the regulations and the act work, it becomes very difficult to see the problems.
My suggestion is to say, "This is how it works in the motion picture industry." In a process enforced by peace officers, we could have a set of regulations which state, "This is how it works." That will allow the system to function in a fairly practical manner.
I deal with many contractual agreements in negotiations. There are perhaps 20 different sections to a contract. There are interlocking clauses throughout the contract. If you tinker with one part, some other part is affected. When dealing with an act as large as Bill C-68 and one governed by regulations, what are the possible implications?
I have spent a lot of time studying this problem. It is difficult to follow the logic without spending all your time doing that, and I do not have time to do that. The production managers do not have time to do that. Certainly a peace officer coming in would not have time to do that.
Honourable senators, we are looking for a way to deal with our issues. However, it is difficult to know how effectively this would work at the work site when we do not know the whole set of regulations.
Senator Milne: Am I to take from your remarks that you would like us to do that, or do you feel that it would be useless?
Mr. Adair: I would like you to do that, but it always requires due diligence. I will not walk out of here today and forget about this. It is just that once we start down a path, it is hard to back up to correct other things.
Looking at how agreements are reached contractually and how acts and regulations are established, you start to build blocks, and it is very difficult to take a piece of that structure out after the fact. Specifically, that applies to how the act works because of the nature of how replicas are defined within Bill C-68. The definition creates a convoluted system when you come to deal with our issues. Even though we wrote letters, we were not included with museums in the initial process. That could have been acknowledged within Bill C-68 but was not. Specific concerns in other industries were acknowledged within the bill, and exemptions were made in specific instances. However, given the nature of the act, the regulations must be structured in such a way to address an issue that could have been addressed easily at the beginning of the process.
Senator Milne: At this point, that has already happened, so now we are looking at regulations.
Mr. Adair: Yes. That is life.
Senator Milne: That brings me back to another question which perhaps your cohort could answer. What percentage of firearms used in the industry in Canada are replicas, and what percentage are real?
Mr. McLeod: I would say that 70 per cent are replicas and 30 per cent are real. That is a very good question.
Senator Lewis: I am looking at the definition of "firearm." This gave us some trouble when we were considering the bill itself. It is very confusing. I think we will have to look at it a little more deeply with respect to whether some of your concerns are not really concerns under the definition section of the act.
Occasionally this morning you referred to the act. We are considering the regulations under the act. I felt that you probably meant the regulations rather than the act.
Mr. McLeod: Yes. I realize the act is the act. Thank you for making that distinction.
Senator Lewis: We are concerned only with the regulations today, which is what you are interested in.
Mr. McLeod: Yes.
Senator Lewis: I mention that just for the record.
Mr. McLeod: Senator Lewis, I think I know what you are driving at with respect to the definition of "firearm." I should make it clear that replica firearms exist which fire blank ammunition. They are not real firearms modified to fire blank ammunition only. They are manufactured to fire a different type of blank which is of a certain calibre. That calibre of ammunition does not exist in the real firearm market. They are slightly smaller. They are not interchangeable, but they will produce a puff of smoke and a flash of flame from the barrel of a replica firearm. The distinction is much clearer with respect to the issue of rubber, but there does exist something which does not fire a projectile and could be classified as a firearm by that definition.
Senator Lewis: Then we get into the prohibited device and the replicas, and this would fall under that. It is very confusing to follow through, but perhaps it may be a way around your concern. However, it may not be quite the concern you had.
Mr. McLeod: We would certainly appreciate any wisdom you can provide to help us out with this concern. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Adair and Mr. McLeod, for your presentation this morning. It certainly gave us some insights into the operations of your business and the difficulties you could encounter.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Monday, December 9, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act, met this day at 1:01 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: This afternoon, we will begin our deliberation of Bill C-63.
As in the past when we have had a bill on which there seems to be some controversy and, certainly, some difference of opinion, we have had a motion at the beginning of our hearings that we would accept no amendments to the bill until we start our clause-by-clause study of the bill and all senators have been duly notified that such a study was to begin.
Honourable senators, is it your wish to have a similar motion as we begin these deliberations?
Senator Milne: I so move, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: This afternoon we are fortunate to have with us the Honourable Herb Gray, who is accompanied by Mr. Ronald Stevenson, Director of Operations and General Counsel, Privy Council Office.
Welcome to you both. Mr. Gray, please begin your presentation.
[Traduction]
The Honorable Herb Gray, C.P., MP, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Honorable senators, I am pleased to appear before you today as your committee begins deliberations on Bill C-63. This legislation represents another important step toward modernizing our electoral system. I intended at this time to introduce to you Mr. Stevenson from the Privy Council Office.
[English]
Madam Chairman, you have already presented Mr. Stevenson of the Privy Council office to your committee. Therefore, I will not do that again.
Honourable senators, this bill aims to provide for an electoral system that is cost effective, which reduces government overlap and duplication, builds on new computer technologies and furthers federal-provincial cooperation in voter registration. In my view, the changes which Bill C-63 propose will help to ensure that federal elections continue to be marked by high voter turnout.
I wish to outline briefly four key elements of this bill. It provides for the shortening of the period for a general election from the current minimum of 47 days to 36 days. It provides for one last door-to-door enumeration before the next general election to do two things, namely, to provide both the preliminary list of electors within five days of the issuance of the writs for that next election and to serve as the basis for a new permanent register of electors. Therefore, it provides for the creation of a permanent electors register that would be maintained by Elections Canada in order to generate preliminary voters lists for all the general elections after the next one. Also, it would provide for changes in voting hours, which would establish an election day schedule responsive to the concerns of many western Canadians, particularly those in British Columbia.
Honourable senators, I know you have received technical information on the bill and will have heard about it in some detail during your second reading debate. I understand you next will have Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, before you. I aim to focus on the broad objectives of the bill and on some specific aspects of it which, I understand, were raised during your debate at second reading.
One objective of this bill is to make our electoral system more cost effective. Hiring, training, equipping and supervising tens of thousands of enumerators -- I think last time there were over 100,000 -- is expensive. The Chief Electoral Officer advises me that a permanent register alone would save taxpayers some $22 million per general election and another $8 million would be saved due to a shorter campaign period.
I should point out that these savings to the taxpayer are at the federal level, namely, the cost to Elections Canada of running an electoral event. These savings would only increase as provinces, municipalities and school boards position themselves to use federal voter information in managing their own elections. I understand many provincial election officials have encouraged Elections Canada to modernize the election system in this way, in part so they can realize savings at the provincial and municipal levels as well.
Not only does this inter-governmental cooperation save money, it also reduces administrative overlap. If there are electors who could be unhappy about repeated visits by enumerators from different jurisdictions seeking basically the same information, this bill, over time, will provide the solution.
Honourable senators, through this bill, we have an example of how governments can cooperate to benefit the country and its taxpayers. Elections Canada has discussed extensively with provincial data suppliers, motor vehicle and vital statistics registrars, how the exchange of information from these sources will help keep the federal register current. I understand that there are preliminary agreements in principle or understandings with a number of provinces already on the exchange of this information. I understand Alberta and Prince Edward Island have already passed legislation to assist Elections Canada in building and keeping the federal register current.
A further objective of Bill C-63 is to maximize the use of modern computer technology in creating and maintaining the register and in the authorized sharing of voter information. Precautions, as have already been outlined to you, will be taken to ensure voters agree to the transfer of certain limited personal information between Revenue Canada, Citizenship and Immigration and Elections Canada. Similar protections will be built into information exchange agreements with other governments. Electors can be assured that technology will not compromise the confidentiality of the personal information in question.
One of the objectives of this legislation is to help ensure a continued high level of voter turnout. A shortened campaign will likely be welcomed by voters. This was an indication of the Lortie Commission, which dealt with electoral reform.
In addition, changes to help ensure western voters to see their vote has equal weight with their fellow citizens in the rest of the country may well encourage their participation rates. Also, the linkages with Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration and, eventually, provincial data sources who will supply data, as well as the provisions for an enhanced revision in areas of high mobility, will help ensure the maximum number of voters are registered.
As I have said before, as a layman, it seems to me that we are substituting computerized enumerators for human ones; in other words, enumeration by computerization rather than by 110,000 individual human beings going door to door.
I am sure that Elections Canada and the political parties will be doing their own work and having their own campaigns to ensure Canadians are aware of any election and how to exercise their right to vote. Please remember that under the current law, during an election period voters can register right up to and including polling day and actually vote on polling day, provided they supply the requisite identification, without actually being on the list.
Honourable senators, I believe this bill will contribute to maintaining the high voter turnout that has characterized Canadian federal elections.
Let me turn now to some specific provisions of the bill that I have been led to believe are of particular interest to some members of this committee. I understand there could be a question as to why the government has brought this bill forward at this time. My answer is that the study, consultation, developmental work and discussions with provinces by the Chief Electoral Officer leading up to the preparation of the bill have taken considerable time. The bill which you have before you is the culmination of work by the Chief Electoral Officer and other individuals and organizations over the past five years, particularly on the aspect of voter registration.
In 1991, the Lortie Commission began its work, consulting widely and hearing from many witnesses on a range of electoral issues. Ultimately, the commissioners recommended the principle of a permanent register of electors and, reflecting the strong public input, commended for further consideration a shorter campaign period.
With the campaigns report in hand, during the previous Parliament, before the last election, a special parliamentary committee on electoral reform began to look at possible changes to the electoral system. This work culminated in Bill C-114, adopted in the last Parliament, which, among other things, shortened the election campaign to 47 days from the minimum 50-day period that had followed from 1982. I should point out, honourable senators, that the legislation that provided for these and other changes, Bill C-114, got Royal Assent on May 6, 1993, less than six months prior to the general election of 1993.
The 1993 general election allowed Elections Canada to test the use of lists from a previous electoral event in the current one. Specifically, the 1992 referendum voters list was the preliminary voters list in the 1993 election. In that election, the 1992 list was used in place of door-to-door enumeration in all provinces except Quebec. You will recall this was provided for in Bill C-114, which said that if there is was an electoral event less than 12 months from a previous one, the Chief Electoral Officer could dispense with an enumeration and use the list from the preceding event.
I believe this experiment worked well and lent support to the concept of a register. Based on this background, Elections Canada undertook research to determine the feasibility of a permanent register as a viable means to keep electoral data current. Provincial officials were consulted about supplying data to update the register and possible collaboration of their respective registries. There was also consultation with Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration. I am told this cooperation and collaboration continues with provincial officials to this day.
The next year, 1994, Elections Canada twice briefed the Commons committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I am told generally concurred with the project and its direction. In March 1996, following a further presentation to that committee by Elections Canada, its members were asked to initiate discussions with their caucuses on the Elections Canada general proposals. The shorter campaign proposal was one of them. I understand the feedback from caucuses, while limited, was certainly not negative. If I am wrong in that, I know I will be corrected.
In the months following that last committee presentation which was held in April 1996, senior officials advised on the project and other important issues such as privacy, which have been addressed in the bill we are now studying. The bill was referred to committee before second reading to make it easier to deal with amendments suggested by members. The ensuing committee study, report stage and third reading debate further contributed to the bill's development. Understandings were reached which produced a number of amendments, and several of the amendments to the bill addressed the understandable opposition concern that election reform must not disadvantage any one party in favour of another.
Honourable senators, I wish to briefly review the nature of the amendments. They put into place the new concept of staggered hours of voting to respond to concerns on this score by western Canadians. They allow the use of provincial voters lists in any province where they meet certain conditions -- such as satisfying the Chief Electoral Officer and that they were done less than 12 months before the last enumeration -- so these lists could be used if they meet the conditions in the amendment in that province in question instead of the planned April 1997 federal enumeration in that province.
They amended the bill to meet particular concerns of the Privacy Commissioner and, separately, the broadcast arbitrator. They provide more certainty as to when a 36-day general election campaign could be called and earlier annual distribution of voters lists to parties. They also establish a by-election calendar which accounts for the different dynamic of these events so, in effect, by-election campaigns would still extend over a 47-day period.
This legislation, honourable senators, reflects a tremendous amount of work over the past several years, including that most recently carried out by members of the house and this Parliament, and I submit it is now timely to consider legislative action.
This Parliament has only just completed its third year of work. It has not been confirmed by the Prime Minister that the next election is imminent, and we have a potential of almost two years to go in the life of this Parliament. In any event, we have the precedent of Bill C-114, which was turned into law in May of 1993 about six months prior to the subsequent 1993 electoral event.
On a further specific issue, I should like to emphasize the register's important role in assisting the political parties. The register will provide an election-ready list of Canadian electors created initially from the planned April 1997 door-to-door enumeration. Elections Canada will maintain it in subsequent years using data from federal and provincial sources, complemented by voter information gathered during the revision process taking place during the election itself. Once an election, a general election or a by-election is called, Elections Canada will use the register to generate a preliminary list of voters and distribute this list within five days of the issuance of the writ to parties and nominated candidates.
This means that effective campaigning, which I consider, based on my own experience over the years, to involve having a list to be used by election workers going door to door, can start earlier, and spending limits, so important to the parties today, can be established and known more quickly. Both of these things, under the provisions of this bill, will be available at least one week earlier than under the present law. In other words, the kind of meaningful campaigning which we all know can only be done with a list in hand and going door to door will be available at least one week sooner than under the present law, and individual candidates and parties will know one week sooner exactly what the expense limits are for each riding.
Next year, if the bill is passed, will be a transitional year in our election system; therefore, the bill has been further amended to say that parties will receive a first preliminary list after the April 1997 enumeration is complete. This will be done by the Chief Electoral Officer signalling the completion of this enumeration through a notice in the Canada Gazette. Within 30 days of this notice, all registered parties will receive a copy of the preliminary list. Therefore, parties will have a current preliminary list with which to start campaigning, should the Prime Minister call an election before the planned first annual distribution of the list takes place on October 15, 1997. All parties will go into the next general election with the same database for all ridings concerning electors regardless of whether candidates have been nominated in all ridings in the first five days or so of the election period after the issue of the writ.
This transitional approach helps remove some of the concerns that could exist in our parliamentary system where, in effect, it is the Prime Minister's prerogative to advise when Parliament is to be dissolved and the date set for an general election. I believe this is a significant response to concerns that the new electoral system not advantage the government of the day. I believe that this bill is neutral as between parties in respect of their effect on them.
The bill is complemented by the provisions which provide that the 36-day writ period does not come into effect until the Chief Electoral Officer has signalled that the last enumeration is complete. Any election called before this notice is given would take place on the basis of a 47-day writ period. This was a further change to address opposition concerns.
At this point, I should like to deal with a comment of one honourable senator concerning the accuracy of the register in the context of an electoral event taking place after the fall of 1997. As I said earlier, this last enumeration will produce a list of eligible voters and is the basis for the register. The register will then be continuously updated with information from provincial and primarily federal sources.
Once an election is called, then there will be enhanced revision processes. The voters list will be all the more accurate as election day approaches. Certainly, it will be as accurate, and more so, as the lists used in the 1993 election. Those lists were not the subject of any major concern by any of the parties or candidates, even though those 1993 lists were based on enumeration carried out during the 1992 Charlottetown referendum.
Honourable senators, the Lortie commission recommended using provincial voters lists. It is our belief, however, that not just provincial voters lists but primarily their vital statistics and motor vehicle registrations added to federal sources, will help give us accurate and more regular updates.
You will recall from my testimony in the other place that Statistics Canada recommended that a federal election register be based primarily on the secure federal data source, which is why the key to updating the register will be the citizenship and immigration information and the information from Revenue Canada.
In any event, the use of provincial sources to add to the federal ones will mean parties and candidates will get a more accurate preliminary voters list once the writs are issued. I understand that some honourable senators expressed concern about the plan to enumerate a last time before the next electoral event.
Let me point again to the electoral interest -- that is, the interest of voters in the shorter campaign as indicated by the Lortie commission. It is one reason to conduct the enumeration sooner and, consequently, to have a 36-day campaign sooner.
As well, I am told that enumerating before a general election allows Elections Canada to plan for and focus on this critical activity while working on arrangements with the provinces. This last enumeration constitutes the base for the registry. This being the case, it is vital that it be planned and carried out with a great deal of care.
Getting on with the enumeration before the next election would, I am told, constitute a welcome signal to provincial officials of a federal resolve to cooperate with them to save money for taxpayers.
Honourable senators, there has been much attention focused on the reduction to 36 days for a general election campaign. In my view at least, having the lists available five days after the issuance of the writs gives more time for effective grassroots campaigning to all the parties than at present.
I wish to say a word about how this bill will affect by-election campaigns. The act has been amended so that, while by-elections and general elections will both have a 36-day campaign, in the case of by-elections, there must be a minimum 11 days between notification of the vacancy and the date when writs are issued for the by-election.
As a result, by-election campaigns will span a minimum 47 days. Again, we have a provision that demonstrates sensitivity to concerns of opposition parties. I should now like to turn to an issue which Senator Nolin raised with me when the Chief Electoral Officer and I briefed individual members of Parliament on this bill. By that, of course, I include honourable senators.
Your colleague wondered how the broadcast advertising rules would operate under a 36-day election campaign. The government did review the concerns of both Senator Nolin and similar ones expressed by the broadcast arbitrator Peter Grant. I wish to emphasize that the amount of paid advertising, six and one-half hours, and the period within which parties can advertise, 28 days, are unchanged. As a result, parties will now have a rolling window of 10 days after the writs are issued to advise the arbitrator of the amount of paid political advertising they wish to buy and when they wish to run the ads. This levels the playing field and accommodates the shorter election campaign period.
I should also like to say a few words about federal-provincial cooperation. In the last few days, I have spoken with all the provincial ministers responsible for either electoral matters or provincial data sources in question. To sum up overall, it is my sense that they want to cooperate in a way that allows for the register to be developed.
For example, there have already been amendments to the bill which mean that voters lists of Alberta and Prince Edward Island may be used in place of last federal door-to-door enumeration in these provinces, which is to take place next April. This is made possible because both these provinces will have conducted door-to-door enumerations within 12 months of the planned last federal enumeration. This is covered by the amendment to the bill, which I have already described to you.
There has been much consultation between the governments of those two provinces and the federal government to help make this approach workable. Other provinces and data source administrators are looking to the passage of this bill as a signal to finalize understandings and agreements which they already have in principle with Elections Canada.
In some cases, further provincial legislation would be required in order to authorize the sending of certain provincial data in bulk to the federal Chief Electoral Officer.
Finally, honourable senators, this bill proposes a new voting day schedule. It recognizes that we live in an era of instant communications and in a country that spans six time zones. The proposed schedule is responsive to the sense among some western Canadians, particularly in British Columbia, that their votes do not count; that elections have already been decided when, for example, Vancouverites still have three hours of voting time.
We understand the frustration expressed in Western Canada, especially B.C., and hearing a final decision forecast moments after Eastern Canada polls had closed in 1993, for example. I believe we addressed this frustration in a positive way by extending the voting day, staggering voting hours across the country, and changing the time that employees are authorized to be off work to vote. We have done so without compromising the integrity of the vote-counting process.
I should note that, during the election campaign and before election voting day itself, as stipulated in Bill C-114, individual voters can cast their ballot any day once the local returning office is open and the candidates are known. This is provided for in the current law. There is much flexibility during the actual election period in terms of voting. People are not constrained to vote only on election day or, for that matter, only at certain advance polls.
In conclusion, this bill provides Canada with a modern election system which the country needs.
[Traduction]
There has been a great deal of work done over the years on the issues which are central to the bill.
There has been hard and profitable work done since I introduced the bill in October. I believe it answers the many concerns that have been expressed by Canadians.
[English]
This bill deserves your support. I commend it to you and I would be very happy to try to answer your questions.
Senator Murray: Minister, you mentioned the amendments to the 1993 amendments to the act. As you correctly pointed out, these received Royal Assent a few months before the election. It is only fair for me to state for the record that the opposition parties in the House of Commons supported the amendments to the 1993 act and that, normally, amendments to the act are brought in, enjoying a consensus of the various political parties in the House of Commons.
In 1993, there was no division either at second or third reading on the amendments to the act. With Bill C-63, while the early reviews were fairly positive, by the time the bill returned from committee, all the opposition parties were opposed to it and you had to invoke closure the rest of the way -- that is, at second reading, report stage and third reading -- in order to get your bill through. As I said in the Senate, that, in itself, is enough to give one pause.
I am glad you referred to the experience between 1992 and 1993, when the enumeration that was done for the referendum in 1992 was used for the 1993 election in every province except Quebec.
A similar situation occurred in 1979-80. There had been an election in 1979. When the 1980 election came along, less than a year later, the Chief Electoral Officer decided to dispense with the door-to-door enumeration.
In neither of these cases, I suggest, was the experience as happy as some of the people at Elections Canada like to make out. In the 1980 experience, the amount of money they saved by not doing the door-to-door enumeration was almost offset by the extra cost attached to the revision.
In the 1979-80 experience, and notably in the 1993 experience, there was a significant amount of duplication on the voters lists. The problem was that if an elector moved from riding "A" to riding "B" between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1993, he or she could, at the time of revision, have his or her name added to the list in the new riding. However, their name could not be taken off in the riding where he or she previously resided. This resulted in an enormous amount of duplication and an inflated voters list.
The comment was made in the media, and elsewhere, after the 1993 election that the turn out had been low by historic standards. Many people believe that is not the case; the problem is that the voters list had been inflated.
There are all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I will not detain you with it now; however, if you want a more authoritative source than a Tory senator, take a look at the comments made by your former Parliamentary Secretary Mr. Milliken, last April, at the House of Commons committee when he was discussing the experience in his own riding of Kingston and the Islands.
That experience of using a year-old voters list was not a very happy one. When I read Mr. Milliken's statements, I found myself agreeing throughout, because it confirmed the anecdotal evidence I had heard from people in my own party.
First, I am inclined to agree with you that these amendments are neutral as amongst political parties. While you or I may think that a shorter writ is to the advantage of an incumbent government, one never knows until one is in the middle of the election campaign. We can all think of elections in which an incumbent government might have done better with a shorter writ and of elections in which an incumbent government could have used a much longer writ and many elections in which it would not have made any difference at all. I do not think the bill places an unfair advantage on the government or the opposition.
Let us go through what is proposed with regard to the register and the 36-day writ. When Mr. Kingsley was before the House of Commons committee last April, he put two options before them. One was that if they could get some legislation through before the summer of 1996, then he could have a register of voters and a 36-day calendar. If not, his suggestion was that we could go ahead with a 47-day campaign and use the door-to-door enumeration from that campaign as a basis for a permanent register for subsequent elections.
Neither of these scenarios has come to pass. We have Bill C-63, under which there will be a door-to-door enumeration in April, which will provide the preliminary voters list whenever an election is called -- and, might be any time after the third week of April until the fall of 1998 -- and a 36-day writ.
If the election is called in April or May, for June, there is no problem with the list. It is a fairly recent list. However, I know you have addressed this in very careful terms. Later on, the state of the voters list will depend on whether the systems for keeping it continuously updated are operational.
The systems are all the federal sources that you have mentioned, specifically Revenue Canada, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, and the provincial sources.
I am very happy to hear that you have taken the trouble, as a responsible minister, to call the provincial ministers about this, because I felt all along that this should be done by government-to-government agreement and not simply at the official level. However, your report is suitably vague.
You have told us that you understood that there were preliminary agreements or understandings with a number of provinces. You said that, on the basis of your conversations with the ministers, they want to cooperate. However, wanting to cooperate and having a positive mood about this is no substitute for agreements which are nailed down.
Has a master agreement been seen by both the federal authorities and the provinces which is ready to be signed and applicable to all the provinces and the territories, for example?
What is the situation with Quebec? You mentioned provinces which might have to legislate in order to give permission to their authorities to share information with the federal government. When Mr. Coté, the Quebec Chief Elections Officer, attended at the House of Commons committee, it was pretty clear that Quebec will not be giving up its driver's licence lists nor its vital statistics but that, in due course, he would be willing to share the Quebec voters list with the federal government. It would be quite important to know exactly what Quebec will agree to before this bill goes through and receives Royal Assent.
More precisely, I wish to know about the situation between the provinces. Is there a master agreement that they have all seen and are ready to sign? In particular, what is the state of affairs with Quebec?
Mr. Gray: I would be happy to deal with these questions. I should also like to comment in response to your initial comments. Would you like me to do that?
Senator Murray: I certainly would.
Mr. Gray: First, with respect to Bill C-114, I was not following it that closely back in 1993. However, I am advised that Bill C-114 did not have the support of the Bloc, which at that time had a number of members but not enough to be a registered party.
To get the bill through, time allocation was used with the support of the Liberals and New Democrats. I am told that the Liberals supported the bill with reservations, believing that there were more positive changes than negative. I understand Peter Milliken expressed concern on the record that the government rejected all opposition amendments at that time.
According to the information I received, there was not the degree of support and unanimity which you suggested.
Senator Murray: I read his speech, minister, and he said that there were many things he would like to have seen in the bill which were not in the bill, but that he supported all that was contained in it.
Mr. Gray: I am advised that the government of the day, unlike ourselves, did not accept any opposition amendments. We accepted amendments at committee. We accepted amendments at report stage. In fact, we did something very unusual: By unanimous consent, we even added amendments at third reading.
Senator Murray: We may have a few more for you here, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Gray: I cannot presume to say what the honourable Senate will do. I would not dare make any comment one way or another on that subject.
I would also indicate my own feeling, in light of the support given by other parties for amendments, which were adopted unanimously, that the opposition expressed by other parties at the end was due to factors that were not always directly connected with the bill itself. This is my own personal view. For example, the Bloc had views about the need for legislation on election expenses. They wanted changes made with respect to our federal referendum legislation and how it would apply to provinces. I think the Reform Party had concerns -- which I am not attacking; they are entitled to have them -- which led them at the end, like the Bloc, to vote against the bill. In my view, they used the debate on the bill and the final voting as a way to express or confirm views they had on matters which were perhaps electoral in the broad sense but somewhat collateral to the thrust of the bill. I say that because there was unanimity on amendments.
Senator Murray: Not on the staggered voting hours; there was no unanimity on that.
Mr. Gray: I am not saying there was unanimity of everything, any more than the Hansard record would indicate there was unanimity on everything in Bill C-114. With all due respect, senator, I am just trying to suggest that there is not as much difference as some may think between the atmosphere at the time of debate and adoption of Bill C-114 in the House of Commons -- I cannot presume to talk about the Senate -- and the atmosphere that pertained to Bill C-63.
With respect to the concerns about the suitability of the voters lists used in the 1979-80 election and the 1993 election, I wish to make one distinction between those two occasions. Unlike during the 1993 election, the Election Act at the time of the 1980 election did not have the specific provision in it for the use of voters lists that had been generated in an earlier election. I believe that the Chief Electoral Officer used what he stated were some residual powers. None of the parties challenged that but, on the other hand, by the time we got to the 1993 election, Bill C-114 specifically authorized the Chief Electoral Officer to use a voters list generated in an election, or in an electoral event, within a 12-month period of the election.
With all due respect, the experiences of 1979 and 1980 did not lead the government of the day to hold back on the amendments in Bill C-114. We operated in 1993 under amendments specifically added to the act at the instance of the previous government. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Milliken and his knowledge of parliamentary and electoral matters, but my own experience in my own riding in both elections -- that is, in 1979-80 and in 1993 -- was the opposite of Mr. Milliken's. I found the experience was quite positive. Yes, there was a need for active revision, and so on, but I am not aware of any of the parties at the national level raising concerns during the election period about the use of the 1993 list. I do not recall any parties raising such concerns after the 1979-80 experience. Therefore, while I cannot say that in every instance, in every riding, everyone was totally happy with every example of the reuse of the list, on neither occasion did the reuse of the list create an atmosphere where the parties, on a national or a provincial basis, raised objections. In fact, I repeat, the government of the day in 1993 apparently found the 1979-80 experience so benign that they specifically offered an amendment authorizing the reuse of the list.
Senator Murray: Short memories.
Mr. Gray: Well, I can only talk about what has happened.
I also observe that, if I am not mistaken, all the provinces have election periods that are around the 36-day length. Some may be 37 or 38, but subject to correction, I think they are all getting by, including in by-elections, with approximately 36-day election periods.
Getting back to the specific questions with which you ended your intervention, yes, it is true that Mr. Kingsley told the parliamentary committee that if they could get legislation through before the end of June of 1996, they could have a register operating in time for the next election. This was not possible. Our legislative program and the priorities in it did not leave time to deal with any such legislation. He did also say that he thought that if this could not be done -- that is, if legislation could not be passed by June of last year -- they would have a 47-day campaign and use the enumeration as a base for the register. But further thought was given to the matter last summer. I must take some responsibility for this. When Mr. Kingsley came to brief me on all the work that had been done, including the presentations to the parliamentary committee, the idea developed of having one last enumeration outside the next election, or outside the next electoral event, which would enable the earlier beginning of a 36-day campaign and provide the basis for a register. This was not originally presented to the committee but it is an idea that developed -- and I think I must take some of the praise or blame for it -- in conversations I had with Mr. Kingsley when he came to brief me on the advisability of a 36-day campaign and a permanent register. That is why the bill has come forward in this form.
If I may continue, there was a question as to whether there is a master agreement. Please ask Mr. Kingsley about this when he appears before you tomorrow. There may be one, but it was my understanding that agreements might have to be tailored with each province because each one has a different set of laws on privacy and on the gathering of motor vehicle statistics, and so on. My own instinct -- although I could be corrected by what Mr. Kingsley tells you tomorrow -- is that the agreements, while having common elements, may have to be tailored to meet the particular legal situation of each province.
As to the up-to-date nature of the list, certainly in the first 12 months after April 30, 1997, when the final enumeration will be complete, the situation will be no different from the situation that existed in 1993. That is to say, the present law provides for the use of a list prepared within 12 months previous to the electoral event. At worst, we will be no worse off than under the present law.
Senator Murray: But you agree with Mr. Kingsley, who said at the House of Commons committee that after 12 months, 20 per cent of the list is no good.
Mr. Gray: But I have not finished my response. We will have, even before the 12 months are up, access to the Alberta and the Prince Edward Island enumeration. We will have access to the permanent register in British Columbia. They have a permanent register but their last enumeration was not 12 months prior to April 1997. However, once we get past that, that register information will be available.
With respect to Quebec, their permanent register -- and they had a lot of stresses and strains getting it organized -- will not be available until May 1 of next year. That is why Mr. Kingsley feels it would be necessary to have a federal door-to-door enumeration of that province in April.
Their register incorporates their health system data and motor vehicle data. Certainly not immediately after, not the day after, not the week after or the month after May 1, 1997 -- that is, subject to Mr. Kingsley certifying that he is satisfied with the nature of the Quebec register -- the Quebec register will also be available to provide a data source for the federal list. The following year, because of the modification of the federal income tax returns with the addition of a box to provide informed consent and similar provisions with regard to citizenship data, that data will start flowing.
Senator Murray: Will there not be a little box to tick off in the income tax return that we will be sent in January?
Mr. Gray: Of this year?
Senator Murray: Yes, of 1997.
Mr. Gray: I do not believe so. I do not think it will be ready. The printing, and so on, has already been undertaken.
Senator Murray: So that Revenue Canada information will not be available until the returns are in for the 1997 taxation year?
Mr. Gray: That is my information. I am trying to be up front about this.
Once you get past 12 months from April 1997, you will not have one list that gets more and more out of date. Even starting within the 12-month period, information will be flowing from a number of sources to help provide the updating data, which we both agree is necessary. I am trying to deal with that point, as well as trying to answer your points about the Quebec list.
It is my understanding that Quebec says, "We have already incorporated certain provincial data into our list and we do not need to give you a separate transfer." I think Mr. Kingsley agrees with that. His concern -- and I stand to be corrected by what he will actually tell you -- is that the Quebec list will not be ready until April 30 or May 1. In case there is a spring election, for example, or an election later in 1997, there will not be time to incorporate that data into the preliminary voters list generated by the last door-to-door enumeration. But it will still be available to be incorporated in later months.
We may differ on other things, but I agree with you completely that it is necessary that the Chief Electoral Officer work vigorously and not sit on the list generated in April for 12 months but begin to incorporate all the relevant data that is available as quickly as possible.
Senator Murray: The information will be flowing if the agreements are signed, sealed and delivered with the provinces. Revenue Canada, which is an important part of this scenario -- and I had not thought about this until you mentioned it -- would not have put this box on their returns for the taxation year 1996 because they could not have done so.
Mr. Gray: The forms will be mailed out very soon.
Senator Murray: That information will not be available until after April 30, 1998, is that correct?
Mr. Gray: It would appear so.
Senator Murray: Revenue Canada information is not available until the middle of 1998. We do not know exactly where we stand with each of the provinces. However, we may get a better idea when Mr. Kingsley is here.
The more I see of these provisions, the more I think that the scenario he advanced back in April would have been the better one, namely, to have gone ahead with the 47-day writ for the next election and then use that list to build up a permanent list for subsequent elections. I fear that we will have the worst of all possible words. Depending upon the date of next election, we will not have had a door-to-door enumeration during the campaign -- as we have almost always had -- and we will not have a properly functioning voters register unless all the ducks are in order.
Mr. Gray: There is a certain arm's-length relationship between the government and the Chief Electoral Officer. He is in a better position than I to give you the details. I have a general overview and I can give you a sense of what each provincial minister has told me.
Senator Murray: Is there an actual agreement with Revenue Canada?
Mr. Gray: It is my understanding that this has all been worked out and they have the necessary arrangements in place. It is authorized under the existing law. We worked very hard to meet the requirements and concerns of Mr. Phillips, the information commissioner.
Senator Gigantès: Is it not inevitable that, no matter what change is pursued in such a topic, at whatever time, there will always be some ducks that are not in line? That is, there will always be some sort of overlap between the existing system and the future system, where the existing system may have something preferable to the future system for a short period of time and vice versa?
Mr. Gray: This is especially the case in matters involving federal-provincial relations and cooperation.
A current example is the movement to transfer job training to provinces. For example, Alberta is ready to sign an agreement; other provinces are not. That is proceeding.
Basically, we are talking about having something done at the federal level. With all due respect to Senator Murray, I do not think we will have the worst of all worlds, I think we will have the best. We will be able to have the advantage of saving some $8 million to taxpayers through having a 36-day campaign in an election -- that is, if it is called in the next 12 months -- by having the enumeration done outside the electoral event. Yet we will also have the basis for a register with provincial data flowing into it as arrangements are made with each province. The arrangements are already in existence in some provinces, including Alberta and P.E.I. With respect to the register, I would also include B.C. and Quebec. I also had a good sense of a high degree of support from the current government of Ontario. I think they are intending to have some type of municipal census this fall which would provide material that they could make available.
With all due respect to your colleague, I would say that they have the opportunity to have the best of all worlds. If one believes that the 36-day campaign responds to voter concerns and saves taxpayers money, we are in a position to have one if there is an election some time in 1997 or early in 1998. Again, I have no idea if that will be the case or not.
Senator Pearson: Thank you for your presentation. It is very helpful and clear.
I certainly welcome the 36-day limit, but there is a third way in which information can be gathered on voters lists, which is actually the voters themselves. They do not have to wait until they are enumerated. I presume there will be some system by which, when people change their residence, they are reminded that they change not only their address for subscription to magazines but also their name on the voters list. I do not see that mentioned in your brief.
Mr. Gray: I am glad you raised that point. I brought that up when I spoke in the house. There will be a provision whereby, during the year, people can inform the Chief Electoral Officer of their change of address or change of data. That is another vehicle they can use.
However, we did not want to get away from what has generally been believed to be one of the reasons for our relatively high voter turn out. The community at large, through government, goes out and puts people on the list unlike in the United States, where people must take the initiative.
They have had very small turnouts. I am not sure that it is only because of that, but many people think the registration method left in the hands of each individual state is a problem.
Senator Murray: They catch about 50 per cent of the eligible voters, and 50 per cent of those show up to vote.
Mr. Gray: It is not something that any of us would want to see emulated in our country.
This will be an available option, not only during the election period but between elections as well.
Senator Pearson: When most people that I know move, they go to the Post Office to get their mail forwarded. This may be something that could be ticked on that forwarding form.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Kingsley will give you details of how he intends to provide for people registering on their own between elections. Your suggestion may simplify that.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There are many ways to keep this permanent register up to date, but it will never be as effective as a door-to-door enumeration.
I am concerned that a permanent list will not be as complete as the enumeration process has proven to be; that in the future, particularly in the initial stages, perhaps not all jurisdictions will be on side, for whatever reason, or one or two jurisdictions will decide to pull out or not give as complete information as the Chief Elector Officer requires. Something could happen to muck up the system.
Is there any provision in the law to go back to a door-to-door enumeration in case it is shown, prior to an election, that the voters list is not as complete as it should be at that stage and will not be as complete as it should be for an election?
Mr. Gray: There is no such provision. The indications I have received from ministers in current provincial governments is that they all like the idea, although they are at different stages in preparing for it.
For example, Manitoba is currently drafting legislation to amend its privacy legislation, among other reasons, to permit the bulk transfer of provincial data to Elections Canada. Each province has its own pace of legislative or administrative change.
I cannot speak for future provincial governments, but certainly from my conversations with my counterparts the current ones seem very positive.
It is my understanding -- and Mr. Kingsley will fill you in on this -- that if there is some problem with provincial data sources or provincial lists, by that time the federal sources about which Senator Murray is speaking will be fully up and running. Mr. Kingsley has back-up plans to ensure that the problem Senator Murray foresees, which I think is a good point, does not come to fruition. Advertising will advise people to register by coming to the Post Office, and so on. Other data sources might be readily available. Mr. Kingsley has plans in place to deal with situations such as that you speak of, which I consider to be somewhat unlikely.
I think this is unlikely because there will be a considerable saving to taxpayers both in their federal capacity and their provincial and/or municipal capacity. Therefore, there would be some pressure of public opinion.
In addition, we will still be enumerating people in the sense of putting them on a list, but we will be doing that through computerization rather than through a person going to each door.
Mr. Kingsley will be prepared to go into more detail than I want to take the risk of doing at this time to answer your question with regard to what happens if someone pulls out. Please ask him that question tomorrow. I think he will have more detail to add to what I have told you.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Would you not feel more comfortable if there were a provision in the law to allow the possibility of returning to the enumeration system in case the government feels that, as the election approaches, the permanent list is not what it was hoped to be? That would give everyone the comfort of knowing that, if the new system does not work, at least we have a back-up system which we know is tried and true, no matter how costly it is. I do not think we have to count dollars too closely when it comes to putting people on electors lists.
Mr. Gray: I am not aware of any such provision existing in the law of British Columbia for their register, or in the Quebec law. Again, if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Senator Murray: Do they not enumerate door to door the third year after an election in British Columbia? They then have a series of regional offices to keep it up to date.
Mr. Gray: It is my understanding that due to the way the federal register has been designed -- and there is very detailed work which Mr. Kingsley would be better able to explain than myself -- the risks of which you speak are slim. If that is correct, the need to go back to enumeration as a fail safe would not be likely to arise.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We can get back to that after speaking with him.
Mr. Gray: I would be delighted to have his more detailed presentation. I am aware generally of his back-up plans, but he is in a better position than I to go into it in the detail which you are quite entitled to receive.
Senator Milne: Mr. Minister, might some of the reasons behind the need for a permanent voters list fall into the classification of my experience in the last election, that being labouring in the non-political trenches of the returning officer? We could not get enumerators. It is becoming more and more difficult with each successive election to find people who have the time to enumerate.
Mr. Gray: I should have put on the record sooner that that is a problem. The indication is, as I noticed in my own recent campaign, that people are not lining up to be enumerators like they used to. Many years ago, many housewives were delighted to earn some pin money by being enumerators. With so much of the population now working outside the home, there are not as many people who want to do that. Also, many people do not want to go into certain neighbourhoods. Conversely, in certain neighbourhoods there are people who do not want to open the door.
Thank you, senator, for putting on the record a rather important consideration which is a problem with the traditional enumeration.
Parenthetically, speaking again as a candidate during campaigns and as one working in other elections at other levels, they are not perfect either. There are always concerns that an enumerator has missed a street or an apartment building and everyone must scramble during the revision period. I am sure that Senator Milne could tell some wonderful stories about that.
With all due respect to your colleagues on the other side of the table, senator, there are some strong points about door-to-door enumeration, but let us be honest and admit that it has its failings as well.
Senator Murray: It catches about 92 per cent of the eligible voters before revisions.
Mr. Gray: Frankly, if we did not have a concept of building a permanent voters list, in effect, putting people on the list through computerization, I could not support this measure. If we were adopting the American system under which people have to register themselves, I would not be here today.
Once I was convinced that we were substituting computerized enumeration for human enumeration, I decided to present this legislation.
Senator Milne: Did you say that not only would you be looking at provincial voters lists but also at municipal lists? Are there differences in the criteria used to select voters in the different provinces? There certainly are in different municipalities.
Mr. Gray: I do not think we are looking directly to municipal lists, because often they are based on property qualification rather than residence, whereas provincial lists are based on essentially the same criteria as the federal list, although the boundaries are different. Some provinces such as Ontario, for example, tend to make their boundaries the same as ours. Even if they do not, computer programs can do a matching and work that out.
Senator Murray: There is a residential qualification in some provinces, minister. For example, you must live in Quebec for six months before you can vote.
Mr. Gray: That is right. That must be worked out. They have a domicile concept which we do not.
I am told it is likely the flow will be the other way. The provinces will be dispensing with municipal enumeration and making use of a provincial list which, in turn, will draw on both provincial sources and the federal lists.
Senator Milne: I notice in the definitions that the list of electors means the list showing the surname, given names, civic address, and mailing address of every elector. That raises the question of women's shelters. I know personally of many women who are in these shelters who have chosen to be disenfranchised rather than have their name and street address appear publicly on a telephone pole somewhere in the riding in which they live. Is there any consideration being given to this particular kind of problem?
Mr. Gray: One answer, frankly, is that you do not have to be on the list in order to vote. People can ask that their names be taken off the list, and that will not stop them from voting. They can go and get on the list during the election period.
More easily, if they really want to keep their location confidential, they can simply turn up at the poll on election day, produce the requisite identification, and be allowed to vote. That was the provision of Bill C-114, which made the urban voter and the rural voter equal.
What I have just said is more the answer than dealing with addresses. Perhaps the people running women's shelters may be want to be vigilant and ensure that their clients' names are not on the list if they feel that is a problem. They can then arrange to use one of the provisions for voting during election day.
Senator Beaudoin: I am in agreement with the principle of a permanent list. The right to vote being at the basis of democracy, I think it is a good thing. However, the important thing is the way it is done. I am in favour of cooperative federalism, but when we are dealing with the list of electors at the federal level, it has always been my opinion that we should have our own list. To a certain extent, we can use other lists, but there are many factors which differ from one province to another. There is the question of residence, which may vary from one province to another. At the municipal level, there are other criteria involved.
Must we go that far in the field of cooperation? It may be a question of money, to a certain extent. Again, I understand that. However, in a federal state such as ours, at the federal level, we should have our own list made by us.
Mr. Gray: You are right, and I agree with you. We will not end up using a conglomeration of provincial lists. There will be a federal list which will have its initial base in the one last enumeration. It will be updated primarily by the federal sources I mentioned -- the basic data derived from Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Although we have talked a lot about provincial data, that data will be a supplement to the federal information.
As I have said, the advice from Statistics Canada was that the federal list had to be based on a secure federal source. That is why the Chief Electoral Officer worked out the arrangements, with the support of the Privacy Commissioner, for the access to the income tax and citizenship information. That information is basically the name, address, et cetera. This law does not provide for a situation in which there is no federal list or a list based simply on rubber-stamping provincial lists. They will be sources of information.
To use the provincial list, the Chief Electoral Officer will have to be satisfied it meets his requirements. There is no automatic requirement to use a provincial list. With respect to receipt of provincial data, let us say a province provides directly motor vehicle licensing data or vital statistics. It will be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to be satisfied as to the quality of the information. The Chief Electoral Officer does not rely primarily on such data because, as we all know, each province has its own law, and you do not change your driver's licence as frequently in one province as another, and so on.
Your point is well taken, senator. What you have said is the principle of this bill -- that is, that there be a federal list based primarily on data derived from federal sources.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The minister has said in other words what I tried to express originally, and that is that the Chief Electoral Officer must be satisfied with the quality of the information he gets. If he is not satisfied with the quality of the information, and if what he gets is all that he will be receiving, how can he then improve on information to meet the standards that he has set out to meet the requirements of a permanent register?
Mr. Gray: It is my understanding that there will be a process of continuing cooperation and consultation with his provincial counterparts so that, over time, the data will meet common standards. In fact, I understand there are provinces that want to have only one list eventually -- not a provincial list but a national list -- which may be chiefly managed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and which they will use for their purposes.
Senator Murray: That is the only way savings will be affected.
Mr. Gray: Provincial savings. I am advised -- and you can check further with Mr. Kingsley -- that there will be savings at the federal level first, through having the shorter campaign of $8 million a year, and an additional $22 million for each electoral event after the next election through not having the door-to-door enumeration and through having the enhanced revisal process for which the bill provides. There will be additional savings to the extent that the provinces do not duplicate what is being done at the federal level. We can talk about $30 million for each election in savings to the taxpayer in his or her federal capacity after the next election. The next will be at least $8 million. There will then be additional savings, which I will not try to quantify but which I certainly believe will be there to the taxpayer in his or her provincial capacity to the extent that the provincial government in question makes use of the information rather than repeating everything.
Senator Bryden: I have a small point which arose out of discussion between you, Mr. Gray, and Senator Murray, and that is the concern that there is not a box to be checked on the tax return that will be filed at the end of April 1997. I do not know what additional information that would provide since the enumeration will occur between April 1 and April 25, 1997. Presumably the door-to-door enumeration will provide the correct information for the end of April of 1997 at least, and the next time updated information would be available from the tax return from Revenue Canada would be at the end of April 1998.
Senator Murray: Excuse me. Mr. Kingsley's point is that, in respect of people who are deducted at source, Revenue Canada gets that information on a quarterly basis, unless they have ticked the box off.
Mr. Gray: Senator Bryden makes a interesting point. If there was a box on this year's return, you would be duplicating what is being done by door-to-door enumeration. It would be the same information, largely, that will be derived by the door-to-door enumerators between April 1 and April 25 of this year. It is next year that you need the information because there will not be any current door-to-door enumeration next year, the year after next.
Senator Murray: If there was a box for the taxation year 1996 and you ticked off "Yes", the information can then be given to Elections Canada. Mr. Kingsley says that the information in respect of people whose tax is deducted at source becomes available to Revenue Canada on a quarterly basis.
Senator Milne: They will not look at this year's tax form anyway.
Senator Gigantès: Mr. Minister, as I understand Senator Murray, if there had been a box to tick off in this year's return, one-quarter after the end of March there would be additional information coming in to the Chief Electoral Officer to correct the April 1997 census?
Senator Murray: Possibly.
Mr. Gray: It depends. The quarterly return must be submitted on what date?
The Chair: One would be required on April 30, one on June 30, and one on September 30.
Mr. Gray: It could. I do not know if this will happen. However, let us say that an election is called in May for June.
Senator Murray: There is no problem with the list.
Mr. Gray: Unless all the computer programs are ready, there might not be time to incorporate tax return information.
Senator Gigantès: They do not have the box on the tax return, but I am sure they do not have the forms already in envelopes. Could they not put a flyer in the envelope?
Mr. Gray: You would have to ask both Mr. Kingsley and the Deputy Minister of Revenue.
Senator Bryden: Regarding Senator Beaudoin's point and whether we will have a national list, in trying to determine lists, I discovered that we do not have only one list. We have one register. As I read the definitions in the applications, we have five lists. There is a preliminary list of electors, which is the register of the parties.
Next, there is the list of electors which, as I understand it, goes to the candidates and the parties and contains only the limited information.
There is then a revised list of electors. That is done by the returning officers. It is my understanding that it does not completely meet the concern of Senator Lynch-Staunton. However, in making the revisions to the list, there is not only a mail-out-mail-back provision but also a provision for door-to-door enumeration in residential areas or in places of highly mobile populations. I am asking that as a question.
Mr. Gray: Yes.
Senator Bryden: There is also an official list of electors which is created approximately three days before the election. Then, because people may be on none of those lists at all but may show up to vote at the polls, there is a final list of electors after the election.
Is it the case that these various lists and the procedures to arrive at those lists were, at least in part, designed to ensure that the list of electors before the election is as up to date as possible?
Mr. Gray: Exactly. That has been a part of our system. As you point out, senator, this is being added to and built up through the changes made in Bill C-114 in the last Parliament. By the end of an election, they will have an even more complete list than when they started. That is a very important point.
Senator Bryden: If, for some reason, some province lost its list or found its list to be totally unreliable, is there enough scope in those sections -- maybe I should ask this of Mr. Kingsley -- to allow a much more complete enumeration in a situation like that?
Mr. Gray: I think so. You are dealing with a situation where you are using a list from a previous election within 12 months. You make an important point. That is not the document with which the election campaign is run entirely. I am talking about the list which candidates will use to begin campaigning door to door. You remind us that the list is built up during the electoral period during the revision and you describe the ways in which it will be enhanced. You have described how the list will be built up by people voting on election day.
This should help answer some concerns about the preliminary list being based on something that is out of date or not totally complete because of the work that you talked about to get these additional lists or updated lists during the election period.
We should take into account the very extensive plans, some of which are reflected in amendments in this bill, for the enhanced revisions, the mail-in-mail-out approach, the targeted door-to-door campaigning and revision in areas of high mobility, and so on, and all the other things that Mr. Kingsley anticipates.
We will get to the period of voting and after with a much more complete list than the one with which the election started.
Senator Bryden: On the voting hours in the various time zones, I see the rationale. I also understand that B.C. was not concerned about learning Atlantic Canada's results since they have enough seats to upset us anyway. I think that happened in 1988.
There must be other possibilities. Were there any other approaches considered to provide more fairness in the reporting than what ended up in the bill?
Mr. Gray: This is a compromise. It was aimed at reflecting the least disruptive approach with respect to the country as a whole. We looked at having the same voting hours as at present but, in Eastern Canada, either delaying the count of the vote or delaying the release of the information. When you look at the thousands of polls where results are to be counted, it seemed impractical to expect people working in the polls, many of whom are elderly or retired, to sit there for two or three hours before they count.
We also felt it would be unrealistic, if they counted right away, to expect that the results would not start leaking out. We would have awkward situations which would be at least notional breaches of the law.
The committee felt -- and I agree with this view -- that dealing with it through delaying the count of the vote or delaying the release of results would be unrealistic. We are talking about several hundred polls in each riding. We decided not to get into that.
As far as other adjustments to the hours of voting, this was a bit of a compromise. We also did not want to create a situation where the polls were open so long in Ontario and Quebec, for example, that election workers would have to spend a lengthy period before they could start counting the votes.
It would also be a lengthy period before candidates and the public at large would even know what the results were in Ontario and Quebec, and even more so in Atlantic Canada.
This is a compromise. It was indicated to us by colleagues in western Canada, in particular British Columbia, that what irked them was not learning what happened in Atlantic Canada. I am not trying to downplay the importance of Atlantic Canada's votes.
Senator Bryden: You could not, in the opinion of some of us.
Mr. Gray: The Ontario and Quebec results would be known and it was not enough to say, as the present law says, that you cannot release the results while the polls are open because information can start coming through the television stations in Washington and Oregon and through the Internet and people phoning back and forth.
We looked at a large number of approaches and this seemed like the least disruptive. Yet, at the same time, it seemed like the most responsive, perhaps not 110 per cent so to the concerns of British Columbians and other western Canadians. Like so many of the things we do, this represents a certain compromise effort.
Senator Bryden: What was the position of the opposition parties in relation to the hours of voting? Was there any agreement?
Mr. Gray: I was not at the committee at the end of the process. I think the Reform Party was not satisfied, although I am not sure they indicated what they wanted instead. They may have wanted some delay of the vote count.
Senator Murray: They were opposed to the seven o'clock closure on the West Coast, in British Columbia.
Mr. Gray: I think that is right. I am not sure the Bloc Québécois had any concerns. The Bloc's concerns dealt with not amending the law to deal with the effect of federal referenda on provincial votes. They wanted built into this bill the Quebec system of dealing with election contributions. This is something honourable senators we will have to address at some point. I felt we were not ready and that it was premature to try to accommodate that subject, which is an important one, not directly on the topic of this bill.
I think it was the Reform Party who had particular concerns about the way we approached the voting hours.
The Chair: Senator Lynch-Staunton raised some interesting questions with respect to the powers of the returning officer with respect to what happens if the lists are in an absolute disastrous state. I would refer honourable senators to section 9(1) of the current act, which is not amended and which deals with the power of a Chief Electoral Officer. It states:
Where during the course of an election, it appears to the Chief Electoral Officer that, by reason of any mistake, miscalculation, emergency or unforeseen circumstance, any of the provisions of this Act do not accord with the exigencies of the situation, the Chief Electoral Officer may, by particular or general instructions, extend the time for doing any act, increase the number of election officers or polling stations or otherwise adapt any of the provisions of this Act to the execution of its intent, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet the exigencies of the situation.
It is a broad residual power.
Senator Murray: I am having a difficult time getting my mind around the provisions for the purchase of broadcast time, the negotiations with the networks and the role of the arbitrator.
Under the present act, it is all done before the blackout is lifted. Under the proposed legislation, the blackout is lifted after eight days and yet you have ten days to buy the time and a further period for negotiations and arbitration. I just do not know how that will work.
I may even want to get the broadcast arbitrator here, because I note in the notes that were done for us by the parliamentary librarian that the changes made at committee or at second reading were made after consultation with him.
Mr. Gray: That is right. The idea of the rolling deadline was really an idea he suggested to us.
Senator Murray: I should like to press him as to how it would work.
Mr. Gray: That is my recollection.
Senator Murray: I have some calls out to people who have more hands-on experience with it than I.
You said you would be bringing in some legislation to respond to the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which you have decided not to appeal. Are you planning to do to have that legislation in effect before the next election?
Mr. Gray: I really could not say at this time, senator. We have a lot more work to do on it. I think it is a subject we must address. I should like to do it quickly; however, I cannot give you a date or a timetable. I wish I could.
Senator Murray: I want to ask about missionaries. Ms Brown, an independent member in the House of Commons, tried to speak to this and have an amendment made with respect to Canadian religious missionaries who are abroad and are not able to vote because, according the legal definition, they are absent from Canada for more than five years.
In many cases, these people have homes here or a home base here and they come back every year or so. However, they are still considered absent from the country for more than five years. She believes the way to handle it would be to designate them as you designate others in Schedule II -- that is, public servants, employees of international organizations and members of the Armed Forces, who are specifically designated. A good case could be made for them. I wonder whether you have considered that.
Mr. Gray: I would have to learn more about the legal definition about which you have spoken. My own instinct, which could be wrong, is that they are in the same position as many other people who are abroad with the intention to return. They would be covered by the law as amended in Bill C-114. I do not know who would deem them or how they were deemed to be absent in a way that they would not be covered.
There are many missionaries. I think of the Mormon Church, which sends their people abroad for two-year periods. I thought missionaries would have been covered by the present law. I will look into it further.
Senator Murray: I got the impression, from the letters we received and from what Ms Brown has said, that because they are not specifically designated and because they may be out of the country for more than five years, even though they return perhaps every year or two for some months, they are, nonetheless, disqualified from voting.
Mr. Gray: I will have to look into that further. I am not aware of the legal definitions which concern missionaries and their supporters. I would have thought that the wording of Bill C-114 was adequate to cover them.
I have to inform myself more about the subject.
Senator Murray: Fine. The issue will be flagged for Mr. Kingsley and his legal advisers when they come tomorrow.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.
The committee adjourned.