PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 20, 1999

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

As you know—and I mean no disrespect to Lynn Myers—our main order of business today is the order of reference of the House of Commons, dated March 1, on the main estimates for 1999-2000, vote 20, under Privy Council, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I know the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff are here, but before we proceed to that, we agreed the last time that we would look at the third report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business concerning the system of exchanges of private members' business. I would ask our colleague, the chair of that subcommittee, Lynn Myers, to proceed. We all have copies of the report.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If you recall, this was tabled back on March 9, and last week we also had a discussion and a number of questions raised and such. I think we've now had a chance to fully review the third report, and unless there are some additional questions, I would ask that it proceed.

I just want, though, to be very clear. Mr. Solomon raised a question about illness. There would be a mechanism by which we would be able to, through the House, take that into account. It wouldn't be something the clerk could do, but it's something the House could do. For example, if somebody is away sick, as one of our colleagues is now, an accommodation would be made through the House. I just wanted to be very clear on that.

A voice: What about the House leaders or the whips?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, that could be a way of doing it. Through the Speaker and such, we would recognize the fact that somebody is ill and we would take that into consideration. It's not, however, something the clerk would do, just so that's clear. But there would be a way to do it.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): The process would allow for that to happen, then.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, because in deference to and out of respect for somebody's problem at that time, we would want to accommodate that.

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, we should be flexible on that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Absolutely. I wanted to be clear on that.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lynn Myers: So unless there are any questions, I would move that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's report to the House, and that the chair present that report to the House at the appropriate time.

The Chair: I'd like to explain to colleagues who may not have been here at the end of the last discussion that we are in debate on this. The motion is before us.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I'm not sure that this restriction on exchanges is.... I appreciate the analysis and the recommendations, but outside this committee, I've never, ever heard this as a complaint. It's not been a big item. I think you mentioned that there have been five cancellations on Fridays and one on Monday in this entire Parliament.

In other words, it's not been a burning issue. I've not heard anybody raise it even, outside the committee here. So I don't know that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the way it's currently handled. People exchange fairly routinely, for whatever reasons, both strategic reasons—in other words, they think there's something coming up that will enhance their bill—and just convenience reasons.

To me, it hasn't been a big deal. It hasn't held up Parliament or held up private members' business, and I haven't heard any complaints from private members.

• 1110

So I'm kind of reluctant to suggest changing the Standing Orders, just because I don't know that it's been a problem. Right now it gives maximum flexibility to private members, and maybe that's just the way we should leave it.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That's a valid observation, especially the point about not a lot of complaints, because of course members want to see that kind of, shall we say, flexibility inherent.

Where we, though, as a committee, and certainly from an administration point of view, find it's difficult is it has the net effect of in fact pushing back the ability of private members to get their bills and/or motions before the House.

We see this as a way of streamlining it. If you have one exchange pending something very serious, as I alluded to before, it ensures there is a smooth process in place for people to get their private members' business forward in a timely fashion.

Also—and this is key—it ensures that others who are waiting have theirs brought forward as well. That for me is the final and ultimate selling point. It's very important, because in a timely fashion, we can see that then take place.

The Chair: Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I had roughly the same question, and Lynn has addressed it. If in fact it's causing a backlog so that other private members' business can't move forward, then we ought to look at it.

But Chuck has raised the important observation that there have only been five or six cancellations or problems. I'm just wondering whether that in itself would have caused that backlog. Or is it becoming more the rule that a lot more members, because it might fall on a Monday or a Friday, when they may not be around, are looking to move it to a much more convenient time?

The second part of my question is, is one exchange time really enough? I know you've indicated to John that other situations will take care of themselves, so this is just one other, over and above what might be there, but I'm just wondering whether or not your committee sees it as a growing problem, and hence that's why we have to streamline the process so that more private members' business gets done, not less.

This is Chuck's point. If this is going to be restrictive, then that's not the way I think we should go. But if in fact it will allow more private members' business to occur, that's good for Parliament and that's good for us.

Mr. Lynn Myers: The potential exists for this to be a problem. The committee felt we should proceed on this basis, because it is a way we will enable more private members to get their bills and motions forward, in response to what Mr. Fontana is asking. That bodes well for Parliament, to be able to streamline and enable that to happen, because it means more people will have access to the process and will not be backlogged.

We thought one exchange was reasonable, because there are extenuating circumstances, strategic or otherwise, as Mr. Strahl points out, and it's important to proceed accordingly.

The Chair: As we have guests, I'd like to move on this in one way or another. I would point out that this is a recommendation to the House that the Standing Orders would need to be changed and so on.

One possibility is that we proceed with this, and if there's concern about it, it can be raised in the House. But I'm in your hands. The other way around would be to leave it again, and we can discuss it at another meeting.

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: As I mentioned at the last meeting, because of all the interest in the round-table and the great concern about a very important section of Parliament—private members' business—we as a committee are continuing to monitor this whole process. If we find this is a problem, we'll come back again to you. So I would like to see it proceed today, knowing full well that the committee is in fact monitoring the whole situation.

An hon. member: Question.

The Chair: Chuck, very briefly, and then I will call the question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think the committee should watch it and analyse it and so on, but that's what they should do before we come to the House with a recommendation. My point is, this report is going to carry some weight with it. As a matter of fact, because I disagree with it, I would put in a minority report on this report, about a paragraph long, saying I don't like it.

• 1115

I would prefer that the subcommittee do their monitoring and watching and so on, and then if six months or a year from now they say it's really developing into a serious problem and we have to deal with it, then we can deal with it as part of the changes to the Standing Orders that are necessary.

I think it is presumptuous to say we need to make this change because it's such a bad deal. I just don't think it is. That's the way I feel. I just don't think it's that big a deal. I don't think it should go as a report to the House, because I just don't think it's a serious enough problem that we should task the House with it or report to the House on it. That's my feeling.

The Chair: Okay.

Bob Kilger, briefly.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in light of discussions we had last week with regard to being able to build a consensus, if there isn't a stronger consensus on this issue—and I haven't heard from representatives of the other parties, but if there isn't a stronger consensus on this issue—then maybe we should leave it for another time, since we have witnesses.

We are dealing with private members' business, and I think all of us recognize the significance and importance of that subject matter. Not to take anything away from Mr. Myers' recommendation, but maybe we should do a little bit more work on it.

The Chair: And perhaps, Lynn, you could talk to Chuck in the meantime.

Okay, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'd be grateful if our guests would come forward.

I apologize for keeping you waiting that period of time. That was important business for us, and it was very useful for us to at least get it to this point.

I want to welcome our guests: Jean-Pierre Kingsley once again, Patricia Hassard, Diane Bruyère, and Janice Vézina. We're very pleased to see you.

Before you begin, I'd like to say this committee was very sorry to hear of the death of Jacques Girard. He has appeared with you before this committee. That was a great tragedy, and we express our condolences to you, Jean-Pierre, and to your staff. It was just a shock to us, as it must have been to you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm personally very touched by this. The onslaught of the illness was a shock to me, and then the ensuing death was less of a shock, because of the virulence of the illness.

[Translation]

I would like to thank Mr. Stéphane Bergeron and Ms. Raymonde Folco for the homage they paid to Mr. Girard in the House of Commons. I will waste no time in conveying the condolences that you have just expressed, and the condolences expressed in the House of Commons, to our colleagues at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Jean-Pierre, we have copies of your overall remarks, but I understand you're going to summarize them in some way. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I thought it might be best if we proceeded that way, and I really appreciate the fact that you agreed with me, because if I had read the speech, it would have taken about 20 minutes. I intend to make a presentation that should last about five minutes, no more, just to give the highlights.

I also thank you for having welcomed the other members of my staff who are here. I want to mention to you that Patricia Hassard has taken over as director of legal services and registrar of political parties from Jacques. I'm sure many of you remember Diane Bruyère, our assistant director of operations, and Janice Vézina, who is director of election financing and who bears a special brunt in terms of this particular committee, since supposedly it's to deal with estimates.

The last appearance we made was on April 28 of last year, and we replied in a letter to all the questions that required follow-up. That letter was sent to every member.

Members of this committee are aware that the agency, Elections Canada, has historically operated under two separate budgetary authorities: the administrative vote and the statutory authority.

• 1120

The administrative vote, or vote 20, totals $2.8 million and is the portion of our funding that you are considering now in committee prior to reporting to the House. It provides for the salaries of a core group of our employees. That's all the administrative vote covers.

All the other expenditures, which total $32.5 million, fall under the statutory authority. I'd like to highlight some of the recent accomplishments in our plans and priorities for the coming year to make you understand better where the money is going.

The cost of the final enumeration in April 1997 was $71.4 million, which is $7.9 million less than what was budgeted for this exercise. The cost of the general election that ensued was $128.4 million, which is $23.8 million less than what was budgeted. There are additional savings of $1.5 million related to the development of the national register of electors. It cost less to develop than what we had told you. And it cost $1 million less for the first year of the maintenance of the register. Instead of the $5 million, it's $4 million.

You should also be, as I'm sure you are, cognizant of the fact that we've conducted by-elections in Port Moody—Coquitlam, which cost $564,000; Sherbrooke, at $474,000; and Windsor—St. Clair, which will cost approximately $500,000.

Last October 15 we provided updated lists of electors to you and to registered political parties as well. This year 85% of the tax returns processed to date indicate consent for the transfer of data, as opposed to the 80% that prevailed for the 1997 taxation year.

We have also concluded sharing agreements with 60 jurisdictions at the provincial, territorial, and municipal levels. The latest agreement, which was signed recently with the chief election officer of Ontario, is expected to save Ontario taxpayers in excess of $10 million. Elections Canada will subsequently receive the updated list of electors from Ontario to update the federal list.

With respect to electoral geography, we have established a partnership with Statistics Canada to build the national geographic database. Our share of the costs is approximately $3.6 million. We will finish linking the addresses from the national register of electors to the national geographic database, at a cost of $500,000, and we expect to geo-reference 93% of all residential addresses in the register.

We have already received requests for this geographic database from other organizations, such as the Department of National Defence, for their year 2000 planning exercise. We're also working on a marketing strategy, because in many respects this is going to be even broader than the national register of electors.

[Translation]

We will be integrating all of the information technologies used in the returning offices. Once this has been accomplished, the returning officers in all the electoral districts will readily be able to use e-mail, access information on electors and provide information to the public.

In April 1998, I created the Advisory Committee, as you had recommended, which is made up of representatives of 10 registered political parties. Its task is to examine administrative and legal issues, including ones you have referred to us in the past, Mr. Chairman. To date, the Committee has met five times and has had very productive discussions on important subjects, for example the 15% voter threshold for reimbursement of candidates, the National Register of Electors, our program targeting Aboriginal electors, and our Electoral Geography Program. At our next meeting, which will take place on Friday, April 23, we will give over the entire day to a discussion of proportional representation and other forms of representation. It's the only item on the agenda.

With regard to the Y2K compliance issue, we have taken the necessary steps to deal with the problem. In 1998-99, we spent some 1.3 million dollars on compliance initiatives. In 1999-2000, we are planning to spend 1.7 million dollars to finish developing the REVISE system, which will replace the ECAPLE system. This new automated system will allow us to update the new register during an election period. We are also setting aside an additional amount of $500,000 for final Y2K testing, emergency plans, facilities and integrated systems.

• 1125

On the international scene, we have just held two meetings that were resounding successes: the fourth annual conference of the Inter-American Union of Electoral Organizations, UNIORE, and just recently, last week in fact, the first meeting of the Global Electoral Organization Network, to which some of your members have been invited. Mr. Bergeron was kind enough to accept the invitation.

We have forwarded a copy of our second strategic plan to the committee and we will be pleased to answer any questions on it.

I would like to repeat my invitation to the committee, and to each of its members, to come and visit us. We will be delighted to prepare for you a detailed presentation on the Register, electoral geography or any other subject that you would like to suggest. We are entirely at your service, not just this morning, but at any time. That is one of the main sources of pride for us.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Jean-Pierre.

[English]

I have Chuck Strahl, Joe Fontana, André Harvey, John Solomon, and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley and everyone, for coming. Congratulations on coming under budget on a few of your items. That's always good to see.

I have a couple of questions specifically on page 13 of your report, about the national registry of electors. I know at least one person signed on their income tax form that they wanted to be registered, because I did that, so there's at least one. But I'm interested in the number of people who are signing on to this plan. How many people find it an acceptable way to register and how many people are saying specifically not to? Is it going as predicted?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Last year, the uptake was 80% of tax filers who said yes. This year, based on a certain number—we're not supposed to reveal how many have been processed—the uptake is 85% who said yes. The remainder are not all naysayers. Some of them are not saying anything.

I think part of that increase of 5%, if it stays that way—and the numbers so far are significant—is due to the fact that, through a marketing strategy, we're eroding the group that doesn't say anything, that doesn't say yes and doesn't say no. You may remember there has to be a positive consent before the data is shared with us.

The business case we presented to you for the viability of the project was counting on a 70% take-up rate, so at 85%, or even at 80%, we're doing very well, and it augers very well for the updates of the register.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You also mentioned that you have continued to pursue opportunities to share registered data with electoral agencies in other jurisdictions to further reduce costs. How many agreements do you have? How many provinces or jurisdictions have signed on, and how pervasive do you see that becoming?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I indicated, I forget in which one of the two speeches, that at this stage, 60 agencies have signed with us so far. Those are municipal governments and provincial governments. At the provincial level, Newfoundland was going to utilize the register, and if the election had been held maybe a month or so later, they would have been able to utilize the federal data for the provincial election. That was a signed agreement. That would have been the first provincial operation.

The first will be Ontario, should the plans go ahead as they are proceeding now. There's a question about the timing of the election there as well, but to turn the data around and make it manageable by the people who are the returning officers there, this is proceeding now. The savings are $10 million, net, to Ontario taxpayers.

• 1130

How broad will it get? My view is it's going to get even broader, because other provinces are also indicating to us that there is a keen interest.

The Chair: Jean-Pierre, could you give us a couple of examples of these other jurisdictions? What sorts of places are they? Are they villages or cities or...?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Winnipeg actually utilized the data, and they saved $660,000. They wrote us a letter thanking us for that. Many municipalities in Nova Scotia came around and signed deals with us, and there were several other jurisdictions.

But in terms of the provinces, Nova Scotia is looking at the register right now and is looking at a study to determine the cost benefit of it. I know New Brunswick is also working out their own kind of register, but where we would be sharing data. So it's having this kind of effect.

Keep in mind that if Ontario does utilize the register, that's 36% of Canadian electors in one fell swoop. B.C. has its own register, but we're trying to work out a deal whereby whoever is better at keeping certain data up to date will do it and will share that. We'll go for the most efficient source of management.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The last question I have is on page 10 of your report. You say you will continue to investigate and rule on complaints relating to the contravention of the legislation during the 36th Parliament. I'm a little surprised that we're a couple of years after the election now and you're still having to deal with complaints from the 36th Parliament election, from the 1997 election.

I know the Reform Party has suggested an Elections Canada investigation team idea, something that can deal quickly with complaints. It's been a couple of years already. Are there many of these? I'm just surprised that it hasn't all been put to bed already from the 36th Parliament.

The Chair: Patricia Hassard.

Ms. Patricia J. Hassard (Director of Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Thank you.

First of all let me say it's a pleasure to appear before this committee, and I look forward to developing an ongoing relationship with you.

On the question of complaints and prosecutions, I have the numbers. There were 864 cases out of the last general election, and at the moment there are 25 in the prosecution mode. There are still a number of open cases, 33 at the moment. The vast majority of course have been dealt with, but we have not passed all of the prescription periods. There have been a number of amended returns and a number of surplus issues. So we're not yet complete, although I would say we're on the bottom, tail-end of that election.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It would be nice to have it done before the next election at least.

Thank you. The numbers are obviously part of the problem. If you've had that many, then I guess it takes that long to go through it. Thank you.

The Chair: Joe Fontana, then André Harvey.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you again, Mr. Kingsley and your team, for providing some very good service to the electors in Canada.

I want to deal with two or three issues. On page 20 you talk about technology and the voting process, one of my favourite subjects around here. But we won't get into our dilemma.

I'm interested to note that you indicate you forwarded a study to this committee in May 1998 as to how we can better utilize technology to give people easier access to the process of empowerment and elections. You say you're eagerly awaiting an opportunity to discuss this topic with us. Are you waiting for us to give you an answer? What are the dynamics of that particular issue?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The topic was broached when the committee considered a possible amendment to the statute whereby the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with this committee, could introduce, under very strict and controlled conditions, the use of electronic voting. Then this was the object of a report that was tabled by this committee and provided to the government, and now I'm waiting to see what will be picked up in the government bill.

In terms of the substance of the report, we are ready to discuss that with you at any time. I will mention one thing. The gist of the report, if one were to encapsulate it in one phrase, is that what is missing at this time is an economic electronic means of ensuring that the person at the other end is who he or she says he or she is. I think the next wave of computers will allow us to solve that problem, in order to satisfy you as candidates and Canadians in general that it is that person at the other end. A PIN number does not achieve that.

• 1135

Mr. Joe Fontana: You're right; technology is ever evolving. But if people are prepared to entrust their money to a machine and to the technology of a bank or a financial institution, money probably means a heck of a lot more to some people than their vote, so I suggest to you that with e-commerce and what's available now, that's the way of the future. It's something we might want to consider.

On page 23, I congratulate you for wanting to have this consultative committee with political parties, but you intend to have a meeting on April 23 with political parties to discuss, of all things, proportional representation, something the rest of the world is trying to get rid of, as I understand it. I'm just wondering whether or not that is the proper venue. Is it in that consultative committee that that issue should come up?

I participated in the Electoral Reform Commission three or four years ago, and that issue was discussed broadly and widely by all of the participants. I can't remember what the report said about it, but it didn't seem to have an awful lot of positive reaction from the public. So I'm just wondering where you want to come with this.

The Chair: The committee was set at our request. Its purpose was to consider administrative and technical aspects of the Canada Elections Act. We dealt with the substantive issues and they dealt with these others. Jean-Pierre can obviously say something about the report, but it was set up at our request.

Joe, do you want to ask your other question first?

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think this is more than administrative in nature. As I said, the Electoral Reform Commission decided....

By talking about proportional representation, you might be putting Elections Canada in an awkward situation. They're the administrative body that's assigned to run elections and do all of that stuff. For them to get into a political quagmire as to whether or not we ought to have proportional representation in this country, I'm not sure that's the venue.

Perhaps, Mr. Kingsley, you can shed some light on my concern, not about whether this discussion should take place, but about precisely where it should take place.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The advisory committee is a committee I accepted to strike, based on the recommendation of this committee. The committee itself, the members of the committee, asked that there be a discussion on this topic. I'm not going to lie. It was not something they all agreed should take place, but it certainly was the overwhelming majority of the members of the committee who provided me with this advice.

I accepted the advice, partly because there seems to be a need for some kind of forum. Number two, it is important to note that this is a discussion forum involving the parties themselves. And number three, in order for us to come to grips with any kind of change to any system in terms of the management of it, we have to understand what it really aims to achieve.

I will underline the fact that in my introductory remarks, I did say we are going to be talking about proportional and other forms of representation. This is not strictly a discussion on proportional. There are mixed systems. There are two-round, first-past-the-post systems. All of these are going to be explored.

I also wanted the discussion to focus on the Canadian context.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I applaud you for that, but I'm still very uncomfortable that Elections Canada would undertake that, only because, as I said, the Electoral Reform Commission that was set up was the forum by which to do that. It's much broader consultation.

We have 10 or 15 registered parties in this country—I don't know; whatever the number is—but I'm still rather uncomfortable about Elections Canada dealing with this. I know you want to deal with it as an administrative matter, but I can tell you, Mr. Kingsley, that having political parties sitting around the table designing what the electoral possibilities might be in this country.... I'm not sure that's the venue where that should be held.

A voice: What about the PMO?

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm not sure the PMO discusses things like that.

I'd be interested to know where the other political parties stand on this particular issue. I'm a little uncomfortable that Elections Canada would be put, in my respectful opinion, in the position of getting into a very political issue. And I can tell you, Mr. Kingsley, this is going to be very political. Therefore it's not administrative, when you start talking about proportional representation or any other forms of how people's votes will be cast and what they will mean. I have a real problem with that.

• 1140

The Chair: We should move on, but I have to say, as chair of the committee, that Joe raises an important point. In our discussion, we deliberately did not discuss this matter, because we put aside matters that involve substantial legislative and constitutional change.

Joe, I'd like to move on, okay?

André Harvey, John Solomon, Stéphane Bergeron, Bob Kilger, and Lynn Myers.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Kingsley, you have been working with Statistics Canada to set up a national, digitized road network. Have you been in direct contact with all the provinces for the purpose of setting up this network?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, not at this time. So far, the agreement to build the database has been limited strictly to Statistics Canada and Elections Canada. We could also say that the Department of Natural Resources has also been involved because we are in fact using its database, but it is not participating in the building of the road network. The two agencies that are mainly concerned are Statistics Canada and Elections Canada precisely because of the need to deploy people and to know where the voters or the people being enumerated live.

As for future uses of this initiative, as I mentioned earlier, we would like to develop a marketing strategy. It is essential that Canadians be able to benefit from this nation-wide network. I am prepared to come back to the committee, if you think it appropriate, to discuss our marketing strategy. I believe that our goal should be to share this data from one end of Canada to another in the public sector, if only because of the cost involved in transmitting the data. This will be the first road network of its kind, that will enable us to pinpoint every residence.

I want to be very clear on one thing: There is no relationship between this network and the Register, except for the one that Elections Canada intends to establish. It is also obvious that the network will prove to be especially useful for other electoral agencies, which already know that, as soon as the network is built, we will be prepared to share it with them.

Mr. André Harvey: Every province has been informed of it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. Moreover, At the conference of chief electoral officers to be held at our office in mid-June, we will be giving them an update on the progress that has been made and a demonstration of the system. As a result of a meeting I had with people from Winnipeg, we will soon be going there to give a demonstration that is not limited strictly to electoral applications, but also covers the province's whole administrative field.

Mr. André Harvey: You told us that the committee had discussed the 15% threshold for reimbursement of candidates. What was the outcome of your discussion? Could you at least tell us what trends seemed to emerge?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is difficult to summarize such a discussion, but I can tell you that the political parties, mainly those which are represented here, but not all of them, tended not to want to change the current system, which requires that a candidate obtain 15% of the votes in order to receive a reimbursement of 50%. An interesting proposal was put forward, calling for a scale starting at 0% and increasing according to the number of votes obtained. Therefore, the candidate will always be reimbursed an amount, although it might be small.

Elections Canada had proposed studying the feasibility of setting the threshold at 5%, linking this 5% to the 5% required of parties in ridings where they present candidates. There would be a link established between the two. We also looked at the issue of associated costs. Our discussion on these subjects are set out in the report that I sent you yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot expect that all MPs will have had a chance to read it, since they have probably not yet received it. Nonetheless, I have already indicated some of the essential points.

• 1145

Mr. André Harvey: I would urge you to give priority to this question, because it affects many candidates and it can cause a very serious problem. I am pleased to hear that you are thinking of changing this standard and that, instead of a straight cut-off at this 15% threshold, consideration is being given to dropping it as low as perhaps 1%. Such a move could considerably help candidates who face very serious difficulties after an election. thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The committee will have the opportunity to examine this possibility when it goes through the report.

The Chair: Okay. John Solomon, then Stéphane Bergeron.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too was going to ask the question André Harvey asked regarding the smaller parties. The NDP would be very supportive of some lowering of the threshold of 15% to make it more fair.

I have three questions. One relates to the by-election costs, averaging about $500,000. Roughly what does that $500,000 entail, Mr. Kingsley?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: May I ask Janice to answer that?

Mr. John Solomon: Sure.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director of Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Thank you.

Basically those costs entail the various staff and rental of facilities and equipment to deliver the election in the electoral district. The bulk of the costs is salaries or fees to election officers for polling day, for revision, for those types of activities.

Mr. John Solomon: So does that mean in a general election it would be the same per riding, about $500,000 to run a general election?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I would say there's a little more overhead in a by-election. There are some economies of scale in a general election.

Mr. John Solomon: With respect to the by-election that's been held, were there any problems with the hours the polls were open? I know, for example, in Ontario they used the Ontario hours of 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., when in fact it seems more reasonable to do it from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. What are your thoughts on that, and what experiences have you had in the by-elections?

Ms. Patricia Hassard: I'll speak to that, because I had some personal experience this week with the by-election in Windsor—St. Clair. The hours were 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. It was an extremely long day for all of the participants, especially with the crescendo it reaches so late in the day. But that's what the law provides for a by-election in Ontario, and we administer the law.

Mr. John Solomon: Would your view be that in by-election circumstances, the hours should be different from what is allowed in a general election?

Ms. Patricia Hassard: It's something this committee can certainly have a look at and make a recommendation on. We put the law into effect, but those are changes that may well need to be looked at.

Mr. John Solomon: Regarding the quality of poll maps, Marlene Catterall, I think last year, raised the, and I raised it with you as well. I'm wondering if that's been addressed by the electoral office—improving the quality of them, in particular the urban poll maps.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is being addressed, and I do remember the discussion very well. We have shared the new maps with the advisory committee so that they could see the product. But I would welcome the opportunity to come to this committee and share the maps with you or have members of the committee, acting individually, come to Elections Canada to review the new product we intend to put out.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, if the committee will indulge me, I have a poll map that I'd like the—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Solomon: Well, it's already framed in my office.

It's a recommendation for a poll map. What we've done, Mr. Chair and Mr. Kingsley, is we've taken a city map, provided by the City of Regina, and then we've added overlays, which you can then do your polls on. This is a much better quality than anything I've ever seen from Elections Canada.

A voice: That's the provincial one.

Mr. John Solomon: Oh, okay. Those are the provincial boundaries. We've overlaid the provincial and the federal.

I want to know if the quality that the electoral office is producing will be similar to this. You don't have to have overlays, but at least some poll boundaries on them.

Pretty good, eh?

Voices: Oh, oh! Hear, hear!

Mr. John Solomon: You can actually read the street names and see the houses and sections.

The Chair: You will recall from the discussion last time that in my riding, several candidates are still lost out there. As they did not include me, I don't mind, but one of these years, I'm going to get lost out there.

Go ahead.

• 1150

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I gathered you did not mind that much that the opposition got lost.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I feel the gauntlet has been thrown down here, and we will pick up the challenge. You are invited to come to our place, and we'll prepare a demonstration of your riding, keeping in mind that our maps are computerized now and you can overlay anything you want, if we have the data, including federal polling divisions. You can change the polling divisions with us if you wish, and we'll tell you where the new electors are and who is involved in these with the new system we're devising. This is what we're trying to achieve.

There were reasons that the maps last time were the way they were. I said that. But this is a good challenge, and we're ready to pick it up and demonstrate to you what we said to the advisory committee political parties.

The Chair: Perhaps we should have a field trip.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I have an urban-rural riding that stretches from here to hell and back, and I'd like to see how that would work out as well, because I find that getting the polling boundaries in the rural areas is just as complicated as it is in the urban areas, even though they're bigger.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I have an urban-rural constituency as well, and we have a similar map for my rural district, but not quite as detailed, because each community doesn't have those engineer-drawn maps. Regina does, it so happens, and we were able to obtain it.

The final question I have pertains to the permanent voters list. In the by-elections and other elections where they've used them, have they been 80% accurate, 90% accurate? What additional work has gone into updating those particular lists, either for the by-elections or for the general election, in the provinces that have used them?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The by-election that was held in Windsor—St. Clair recently had lists that were quite up to date in terms of changes, because we had the time to build in the address changes flowing from the income tax information as well as the latest information flowing from address changes on drivers' licences, which we obtained from the Ontario people.

I don't want to be quoted on a number, but certainly we had 95% of the electors, which is as good as a door-to-door. Well, I would say 92%, because I want to make a statement after. And we had them at the right address I would say in above 85% of the cases.

So in effect the energy we devote now to revision, which is what we've been planning all along, is where the difference in cost takes place, and it is working out well. It worked out very well in all three by-elections.

Keep in mind, though, that for by-elections, you don't get the same participation rate, so we have to be careful about that in how we extrapolate the data. The non-participants would probably tend to be people who have moved recently, more so than the stable population. So we're having to be careful about how we play with that.

The one thing to keep in mind, though, is that we had not added the new 18-year-olds. This is how we shorthand the discussion on them. But there's a mail-out being done to practically all of Canada, except the province of Ontario, among certain exceptions, because of the looming general election there. If they utilize the lists, it will confuse electors if they've received a piece of mail for prospective electors. So on that score, I'm relating very directly with the chief election officer of Ontario.

But this is how we do updates on these matters.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks, John.

Stéphane Bergeron, Lynn Myers, and Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I would like to thank Mr. Kingsley and his colleagues and assistants for their presentation and for the very detailed and highly instructive answers that they are providing to the questions that we have asked.

First of all, I have two comments. The first has to do with the invitation Mr. Kingsley never fails to extend anytime he appears before this committee. He always invites the members of the committee to go to Elections Canada to see how things work in the field. Of course, in the whirl of our activities, we never have any time or we never take time to go over there and visit. Perhaps we should look at an informal meeting of this committee over at Elections Canada so each and everyone of us could pencil it into our agendas and give a positive answer to this charming invitation Mr. Kingsley extends every time he appears before us.

• 1155

My second comment has to do with what Mr. Fontana was saying—and I'm sorry he's not here—concerning the discussion that will soon be held on different voting procedures.

Far from being worried that this discussion will take place, I rather tend to be happy about it in-so-far as I think that you never have anything to lose when you discuss things. That's the very basis of democracy, that you shouldn't try to prevent discussion on certain things. It's important that we feel free to discuss anything, even seemingly taboo topics.

Mr. Kingsley did go to the trouble of pointing out that he set up this advisory committee at the request of this committee and that the advisory committee includes representatives of all registered political parties. Thus, we shouldn't have too much bias in-so-far as we rest assured that we'll be represented through the representatives of each one of our political parties.

That said, nothing is being held behind closed doors or in camera. In the text he gave us today, Mr. Kingsley went to the trouble of pointing out:

If this matter were to interest you...

It seems that is the case.

...I will report to the committee on the main points of our discussion.

So there's a willingness to share these discussions with us.

Finally, I'd like to point out that during the very exhaustive study we conducted on the Elections Act, we, of course, benefited from a number of suggestions coming from the different political parties and other colleagues, but also from important suggestions made by the Chief Electoral Officer. So if the Chief Electoral Officer should make recommendations on possible amendments to the Elections Act, it should be possible to think about these matters and obtain advice wherever it lies to be able to make suggestions.

I'm not saying that because I'm in favour of the proportional mode, because as we speak, I still have serious reservations concerning that. I'm not yet convinced that this system is quite adapted to our needs. That said, I would object to Mr. Fontana's intervention when he said it was a model that was disappearing. Actually, what is disappearing, is the traditional single constituency, single stage model that's disappearing in the great Western democracies. I think we should also take that reality into account.

Mr. Chairman, I'll now go to my questions.

During the 1997 election, a slight decrease in participation was noted. I know that Elections Canada is making some effort to sensitize Canadians to the importance of the elections process and their participation in these elections. How can this patent disinterest be explained? Has any thought been given to this matter?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The question is very relevant because it does intrigue. It's hard to put a finger on a single cause. We always tend to say that if it's not nice out, people won't go to vote, but we have noted a decrease of some 4 or 5% all across the country. I don't know what the cause could be. Was it temporary disaffection of the electorate? It is also said that people don't go and vote when they're sure of the results and they don't think that they'll have any influence. Is that what happened? I don't think any studies have been done that would explain this fact.

Without putting my reputation on the line, I think that a decrease of the same magnitude happened all across the country and that this unfavourable trend, if I may express it in those terms, was maintained all across the country, even though I presume there were some minor variations. Of course, I looked particularly closely at Manitoba because of the decision we had to make there. The same thing happened there and the percentage of participation was the same as elsewhere.

It's really hard for me to explain why. As I was mentioning, during an interview after the elections, I can only hope that this was a temporary glitch and that the Canadians will go back to the polls during the next federal elections.

• 1200

It's participation that gives credibility to the results and makes them acceptable. During an election, that's the crux of the matter.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before, we mentioned the numerous cases that led to investigations or went before the courts and we got a very relevant answer in this respect. Where are we with the several investigations undertaken by Elections Canada or the Commissioner? Are they almost all done or are a certain number of them still underway?

[English]

Ms. Patricia Hassard: The figures I can give you, sir, are that there were 864 complaints before the commissioner out of the last general election. At the moment there are still 33 open, and 25 of those are in the prosecution mode. So the other cases have been dealt with by the commissioner and his staff.

It's a separate unit within Elections Canada. It consists of the commissioner himself and two lawyers, plus a staff of investigators. They handle this business on their own, under the general supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are about 30 left.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do they still all concern the 1997 election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. As was indicated earlier, we should remember that the parties must submit their report six months after the election while the candidates must do it four months after. So we have to take those deadlines into account when we count the time needed to settle complaints. We figure the Commissioner should have everything settled within 18 months after the alleged offence has been committed. Of course, he first studies the hottest files but there are always a certain number of points outstanding that demand clarification. As you have seen, there is only a small minority of cases that go to court.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: One last question?

[English]

The Chair: Please be very quick.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes. In the text you gave us, you say:

We've finally finished with our study entitled “Technology and the Voting Process” [...]. We can hardly wait to look at this matter with you to apprise you of our conclusions and advise as to your interest in following up.

Although I am conscious that you can't discuss all the details contained in the document, could you, as our anglophone colleagues are wont to say, give us the “highlights” so we can have an idea of where Elections Canada would eventually like to go in the area of technology and the voting process? I don't exactly understand what is meant by that and I still have some reservations in that area.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I was mentioning previously to your colleague Mr. Fontana, this study has already been tabled with your committee. At the beginning of that study, you'll find an executive summary that does give you the highlights. In those highlights, as I mentioned, you'll have the fact that technology does not allow us, at this point, to identify with any certainty who is at the other end of the machine. Neither we nor our fellow Canadians can be certain that the person voting is the person he or she claims to be.

I appreciate the fact that you raised this question because that allows me to reiterate what I was saying a bit earlier. Elections Canada is in favour of gradual and monitored introduction of the different allowable voting processes using an electronic system and would like to take the opportunity, anytime the possibility of using a new mechanism is examined, to appear before the committee to explain how we would like to proceed and get your consent before going further. We could undertake preliminary tests during a by-election, but we'd be doing it initially in a controlled environment and based on conditions on which you have agreed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When we talk about using data processing and electronic means, does this possibly mean voting through e-mail or using data processing equipment at the poll itself?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's the crux of the matter. When you talk about a supervised or controlled environment, you can be talking, for example, about what goes on in the returning officer's office.

• 1205

Those who talk about electronic voting are looking for greater ease and even go as far as talking about being able to vote from their car on their way to work. That's what these people are looking for. We talk about all these matters in the report and it's important for you to have the opportunity to discuss the whole thing.

[English]

The Chair: Stéphane, I think it would be useful to recirculate that report, and we will do that.

It's now Lynn Myers and then Chuck Strahl.

I'm going to ask Marlene to take the chair. I have to leave early.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have three reasonably quick questions.

First, at election time or at referendum time, a huge number of staff is hired to do a lot of work in a short period of time, and I wonder if you see any way around that. Is that something we'll always be faced with? Is that an ongoing consideration we have to deal with?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's very difficult to foresee a time when we would do away with that, unless one were to somehow partner with municipal authorities that already have the staff, but they would have to be diverted from other functions, and we would still have to pay.

As for the numbers, we have between 225 and 240 people at head office. We more than double at head office, with communications, more computer specialists, help desks, etc. In the field, through the returning officers, we hire an average of 10 persons per office, so that's 3,000 people, and then for revision we hire more. But on polling day we have to hire approximately 100,000 people, for just that one day. There's no way around that under our system, unless we want to change the whole basic approach, which is that in the polls, Canadians find their neighbours, and not bureaucrats from another department.

Mr. Lynn Myers: You've done surveys and post-evaluations based on the elections and the by-elections. I wondered what sorts of findings you got as a result of that. I gather DROs, returning officers, and other staff are polled. Is that an accurate assessment?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We just completed, about four months ago, a thorough review where we polled returning officers, assistant returning officers, data automation coordinators, as well as what we received from parties and what we received from candidates.

Over 2,000 recommendations were considered internally and adapted for the next election. Perhaps, if you're interested, I could send you all 2,000.

In terms of examples, perhaps Diane could help me, because she's in operations, and some excellent suggestions were made there.

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Quite a number of issues were covered, ranging from changing material to providing new material to people's rates of pay. Some recommendations related to the legislation, the things they would like to see changed. So there were quite a variety of things.

We take all of these into consideration when we review our material and our processes for the next event, and we try to implement as many as we possibly can.

Mr. Lynn Myers: So it's a useful process?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Very much so.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We go back to the people who made the recommendations, by the way, to let them know how the recommendations were eventually resolved—either accepted as is, modified, or not accepted—and we give the reasons. All of this is a very elaborate process, but it pays off handsomely in dividends for the next event.

Mr. Lynn Myers: My third and final question is with respect to the ongoing voter education. Maybe in a way it dovetails with what Monsieur Bergeron was saying about involvement.

What's the educational program for voters between elections? Do you gear up at election time? Are there things that could be done to maybe increase voter participation over and above the 67%, for example, in 1997?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, the implied suggested is very welcome. In the past we have been doing publicity on what I would call a punctual basis—that is to say, when it was related to a particular event, a referendum or an election—in terms of informing people about how to relate to the process.

But now, with the establishment of a permanent register of electors, the advice we've gotten from experts is that we need to establish an ongoing basis. Therefore we are going to have to develop, for mainstream populations, a kind of ongoing education about the electoral process in Canada so that the 85% participation rate of tax filers goes up even more.

As well, we continue, though—and I want to be very careful about this—to target specific groups. We have now mounted an effort to reach out to the aboriginals in Canada. This is an ongoing thing that is taking place with the Assembly of First Nations, and we are approaching the other representatives of Canada's aboriginal populations.

• 1210

We have established very deep relationships with associations representing different populations of disabled Canadians. We continue to reach out to them on an ongoing basis.

There's also going to be a special program relating to youth. Now we are writing to all the youth of Canada, or practically all the youth of Canada, when they attain the age of 18. This is going to be part of our routine now with the register. The first mail-out has occurred. How we package that has a lot of impact, and we're hoping we will see the participation rates increase for young Canadians.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)): Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a couple of questions.

I notice in your report you say the initiative of renaming of constituencies by members of Parliament is normally done through a private member's bill, usually an all-party agreement, and it goes fairly quickly through the House. But I am concerned about a couple of things.

One is the cost of that. Once you folks start printing your maps and so on and somebody throws in a new constituency name, I take it you have to trash the whole works and start again.

Secondly, does it get more expensive the longer they wait to change the name? It's still ongoing. There are still some people in this place who want to change their constituency names again, two years after the last election.

I'm interested in the costs of that so that we can communicate to the MPs whether or not they should be doing that or whether it's frivolous or whether it really does throw the monkey wrench into it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I had an opportunity to appear before a Senate committee that considered the last three private members' bills on this issue, and I presented the costs associated with that. I'm pleased to summarize it for you.

If the change has fewer than 50 characters in total with the new name, then it's several thousand dollars each time, because we don't junk the material. We put out addenda so that people know that the map, which was called XYZ, is now ABC—XYZ. That's all we do. We don't change everything, because it's too expensive.

But if anyone comes out with a name that has more than 50 characters, with blanks and whatever, that's $500,000 to change the software. When we wrote the program, we said it would be 50 characters, because no one had even approached that. Now it's getting close. We even had to invent a way of doing one.

I don't wand to sound too bureaucratic about this, but those names are approved by the commissions. When there's a disagreement about the name, it should be brought to the commission's attention before it finalizes the names. But the very bodies in each province that look after the historical significance of names...all of those bodies are consulted by the commissions before they finalize the names. So it gets into a spiral, for reasons that escape me.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My opinion is it's just a political thing. People say they want a name that has every town and hamlet in their riding, and as you say, that's how they approach the 50 characters, because they just include every region or area. I think that's why they do it. It's nice to be all-inclusive, but I want to be able to caution MPs to realize that there's a cost involved and that they should only do it if something is a glaring error.

I'm pleased to hear your analysis. I'll try to find that information, that detailed presentation you made to the Senate. That could be useful as well.

The last question I have deals with the electoral lists. According to your remarks, you've done quite a bit of work on the permanent voters list. It's basically the highlight of the year for many of us. It was a legislative change and a highlight for Elections Canada to make that happen.

We took the last elections list you sent to us and tried to match telephone numbers. That's a political, partisan activity, but it's common for everyone to match the telephone list to the electoral list. We came out with only about 50% that we could even find phone numbers for. I don't know if that's an error from the telephone....

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Obviously.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, enough said.

• 1215

Obviously Elections Canada's list isn't necessarily shared with BC Tel, but is there any effort to make the computer programs compatible with those of telephone companies—in other words, to use a format that people can cross-reference from? They don't need to access the list, but it could be done on an IBM-friendly program that you could do some cross-pollinating on. Is that considered at all?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is not considered, sir. When the bill was being discussed, the committee considered the usefulness of Elections Canada picking up that data. The Privacy Commissioner recommended against that, and you accepted that recommendation, and so did Parliament.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: For that reason we have not pursued any kind of partnership with telephone companies in respect of how we maintain the lists.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I respect that privacy problem, nor should we consider giving it to the telephone companies, but without giving anybody a list, all political parties and interested wannabe political parties put phone numbers to lists, and they try to do it electronically.

We get this list from this person, totally separate from this one, and you can buy this list from the telephone company, and you get this list from Elections Canada. To do the mind-meld on that thing would be of course very useful. It could be an expense for the political party—that's obvious—but it's just a matter of whether it's compatible.

I'm not sure if that would really hurt anybody's security. I don't think it would, because they're obviously two separate things. The political parties could do it, if they wanted, at their own expense, if maybe there was a simple phone call to make that possible, without compromising anybody's security, which I realize you have to make paramount.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Initially I made that recommendation, because I saw no security issue. I mean, telephone numbers are in books across the land, with names and addresses. But that was overturned.

But in light of your interest and the interest of the committee, I will look into that. When I next appear, I will tell you what the results were of our looking into that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall): Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I want to follow up on Mr. Strahl's interest in riding name changes.

All the parties had agreed to one last omnibus bill. I think there are approximately six changes. The last one was March 31, but we've not yet brought it forward, because I think we're waiting still on some advice from you and your office, because of the possible pending Ontario election, as to whether in fact we should proceed at this time with those or wait until, let's say, this fall. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at that yet or whether it's been submitted to you by Mr. Boudria or not.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have not received that request yet.

By the way, I did provide this committee with the statement I made when I appeared before the Senate committee considering that bill, so I hope it was circulated to the members.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Off the cuff, would you care to give us your advice? If in fact we had a few riding name changes occurring in the province of Ontario, because I think we have an agreement now with Ontario....

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My advice is if it's possible not to do name changes before the provincial election in Ontario has taken place, the chief election officer of Ontario will be eternally grateful to you.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Okay. Can we proceed with those outside Ontario and then do the Ontario ones, or should we do them all together? What's easiest for you?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other for me, but if you can withhold Ontario, that will be quite appreciated.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall): Okay.

Is the committee ready for the vote? The motion is that vote 20 under Privy Council, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, be adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall): And that the chair report vote 20 under Privy Council, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, to the House.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall): Our next meeting is on Thursday at 11 a.m., and it will be about the draft report on leaks, in camera.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Madam Chair, members, thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. It's much appreciated.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall): Thank you, as always, Mr. Kingsley.

This meeting is adjourned.