HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, September 25, 2003

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1110

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

1120

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1125

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Reed Elley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1130

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Diane Davidson (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Diane Davidson

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1135

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

1140

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1155

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

1200

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1205

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1210

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

1215

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1220

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

1235

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

1240

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 057

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, September 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I am going to call the meeting to order.

First, we have a motion to reappoint the associate members to the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment--it's a formality. The motion is that Marcel Proulx, Scott Reid, and Paddy Torsney be members of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment from the time the 45th report of this committee is concurred in by the House, and that Paddy Torsney be chair of the subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The other thing I would like to point out to you is that Mr. Kingsley is in the middle of hearings in another part of the building, so we're going to have his testimony first and questions to Mr. Kingsley, and then if there's further debate, we'll excuse Mr. Kingsley, if that's all right with everybody.

Mr. Godin, don't make that scowly face. He's going to answer all your questions.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): All?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Well, as many as is possible, Mr. Godin.

Peter Adams is not sure he should have left me in charge. He's probably worrying as we speak.

Mr. Kingsley, would you like to briefly address the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a privilege for me to be invited to speak to you as you examine Bill C-49, An Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

I would like to clarify one point, Madam Chair. I am also on the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, in another building.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Either you have the ability to be everywhere at once or you have a clone.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Call me back when you talk about cloning, whether you're in favour or not.

Ms. Diane R. Davidson, who is Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, is with me today.

I thank you for affording me this opportunity today since I'll be in Latvia next week at the request of the Honourable Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons. Of course, if the committee wishes to hear me, that would be my priority.

My presentation is divided into two parts: in the first, I will describe the stages involving my office that led to Bill C-49. In the second part, I will provide an overview of Elections Canada's plans for implementing the new electoral map. The detailed plans, which contain specific dates, occupy some 11 pages of this size and are at my office. I wish to emphasize that, as Chief Electoral Officer, it is my duty to be ready for every electoral scenario that might influence the administration of elections. I wish to ensure you that I am always aware of that.

The possibility of reducing the one-year period provided for redistribution has been referred to before this committee on a number of occasions. The subject has also been raised in the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, to which I referred a few minutes ago. Every time the idea of amending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in that way has been raised, I have noted that special attention also had to be paid to the political parties' positions on the subject and those of the candidates, which is what you may be in the next election.

As a reduction of the time period is increasingly the subject of conjecture in the media, I have asked Peter Adams, your chair, whether it would be helpful for me to write to your committee on the subject. Mr. Adams answered that it would be helpful. I would also like to remind committee members that the committee has always told me that I could use my judgment and write to it any time I wanted to raise any subject or report with it. I have exercised my judgment, but with the committee chairman's approval.

On July 15 last, I sent him a letter stating that my organization could implement the new electoral map by April 1, 2004. I should add that copies of my letter, forwarded in both official languages so that they could be distributed to members of Parliament, were sent to the Honourable Don Boudria, Minister of State and Government House Leader, to Senator George Furey, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and Ms. Paddy Torsney, Chair of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment. I also sent copies of the letter to all members of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, and it could be read on the Elections Canada site in the days after it was sent, since I issued a press release on it.

Now I'm going to switch to English.

Á (1110)

[English]

As Chief Electoral Officer, I need to be ready, as I was saying, for various scenarios at all times. Since March 31, 2003, my office has been prepared to conduct an election under the present 301 electoral districts, with the enhanced systems and services for Canadians on which I reported earlier. We were ready at any time, but at that particular time we had achieved our objectives on improving systems. On January 1, 2004, we will have implemented the requirements of Bill C-24, the new political financing regime, which I am discussing in detail with the advisory committee of political parties all day today. Finally, on April 1, 2004, we will be ready to conduct a general election under 308 electoral districts, should Bill C-49 be adopted. The writ of election must be taken on or after April 1, 2004, in accordance with this bill before you.

In order to be ready for a general election under the new representation order as soon as April 1, 2004, my office has to provide training to all the new and reappointed returning officers. We are expecting, in effect, to train almost 1,000 people. This includes the returning officers, 308, and two each of their key staff, the assistant returning officer and the automation coordinator. They will all come for various training sessions. I've been informed that in the process that is now under way a high proportion of returning officers will be reappointed. This will greatly facilitate preparations for an election under the new electoral map. It will also allow us to provide training to new returning officers so that they can complete the preparatory work this fall. That is an eight-day training course that we now hold for all new returning officers, every time a new one is appointed.

This work, by the way, the preparatory work about which I'm talking, includes the review by all returning officers of the new electoral boundaries, so that the required changes can be integrated into Elections Canada databases and can be reflected in the list of electors, the maps, the polling division descriptions, and the other geographical products that we provide to parties, to you, the candidates, and the returning officers during an election. All of that work has to take place.

In this context, I should mention that by October 15 coming, that's within weeks, all members of Parliament and the registered parties that so request will receive the updated version of the list of electors for their electoral district. We will continue after that date with our ongoing updates, and all candidates at election time will receive a revised version of the lists once the election is called, whether it's under the current 301 ridings or under the forthcoming 308 ridings, whenever that is, whether this bill is passed or not.

My office must also convert the data from the national register of electors and our geographic database to the new electoral district boundaries. Returning officers need to review and provide feedback on these changes as soon as possible this autumn, so that we can adjust our geographic products and our headquarters databases. These databases are critical, because they allow us to inform electors of their voting locations on voter information cards, by telephone, and on our website. We have now provided this service on our website.

Moreover, by the end of December 2003 we will have completed the transposition of the poll-by-poll results from the 2000 general election into the new electoral districts. This important process allows us to determine which registered parties and their candidates have the right to provide the returning officer with recommendations for revising agents, deputy returning officers, and poll clerks. We were discussing this item just before I left the advisory committee of political parties, and they asked us to see if we could hurry this date, because that is required in order to transfer assets as well between existing ridings and the forthcoming ridings that come about. So we will do everything we can in that regard, and I will advise them if we can move anything.

Á (1115)

Finally, my office must produce all the geographic products under the new boundaries. Those products, including the maps obviously, will be available to returning officers and political parties by April 1, 2004, and to candidates once an election is called after that date, whether it's 301 or 308.

Another critical task that demands time and resources is to communicate with Canadians all the changes that will take place before the next general election through a media and public relations campaign. It is my duty to make sure the electoral system is as accessible as possible to all electors, which means people need to know whether they are registered and how to revise their entry if required, how to register if they're not on the list, where and how to vote, and the rules for making political contributions.

Madam Chair, I'm grateful for the opportunity to offer this brief overview of the background to Bill C-49 as it relates to Elections Canada and the implications for it. I will now be pleased to respond to your questions and comments.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Before I go to the speakers' list, I want to just ask you one more thing for my own clarification. You suggested that you're going to redo the polling. For example, Mississauga gets a new riding, which so far I've held. So you will decide, by moving the results into that geographical area, which party dominated, therefore which party appoints the returning officer, therefore which party appoints poll clerks.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The deputy returning officer and the poll clerks. As a general rule, there is no change from what one would expect, but at the last exercise there were some changes. In other words, when we transposed the votes because that riding had been split, some parts transferred; sometimes we saw a change in the ranking. This is why the law requires that this be done. This morning we were explaining in how detailed a fashion we will be doing this with split polls, for example. If it's a total poll from the 2000 general election that fits into a new riding, we transfer the votes exactly as they are, but if it's only a partial poll based on the 2000 general election, we do an allocation, which is a proportionate one, based on the number of electors in that sector. We can now identify the number of electors in the sector that move versus the number of electors that stay, and we apportion that based on the vote in that poll with that population.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I never fail to be impressed by what you can do, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Okay, I'm going to go to the speakers' list: first Mr. Jordan, then Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks.

I'll just preface my comments by saying we also are looking at the process. I don't want to get into that too much today, because we've agreed to look at that as a committee; I'll try to keep the two issues separate. But I'll just plant the seed. The one criticism I have a hard time defending is the situation where the draft report came out and people may or may not have had their ridings adjusted. People who had their ridings adjusted then engaged in a process of putting together arguments pro and con and going through the process. That was then readjusted, and in some cases somebody who in the draft report didn't have their riding touched ended up getting their riding readjusted after the hearings, but they didn't participate in the hearings, because naively, mistakenly, or for whatever reason, they didn't think they were under threat of having their riding changed. So they really weren't as engaged in the process and given the same opportunities to go through the arguments. That's the one issue that I'll just flag, not that we're going to deal with that today.

Having said that, I believe the new riding boundaries, based on the census, are a fairer representation of Canada. So the sooner we can do it, the better. But the devil's in the details. The one-year period that was in the legislation, is that rooted in anything other than the time it would have taken to do it when that legislation was put in force, or is there any other reason to have a year there?

Á (1120)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Obviously, I wasn't around when they passed the law in 1964, I think it was, and I haven't verified the transcript, but it must have been based on the amount of time that was required then, in the view of people, to do all the things that needed to be done to switch from existing ridings to new ridings. Political parties must have participated in that, members of Parliament must have participated in that, and presumably the Chief Electoral Officer at that time participated.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The reason I ask that is that history will show that the realignment of ridings has been open to political manipulation and abuse. I think, when they put this in place, they really tried to get that out. I'm just hoping we're not getting back into that business. We did hear from some of the provincial people that the CAD system certainly expedited matters, when you can click and move a boundary and everything is adjusted. I want to have confidence that we're not monkeying around with something other than a timeline based on the incorporation of new technology, and you spoke to that in your letter.

Also in the letter you talk about its being contingent on the Ontario and Quebec reports coming in on July 31. They didn't come in until August 25. Does that change anything?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Not really, because this occurred during the summer, and because it occurred during the summer, it did not have an impact on our ability to anticipate the plan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

One final question, then. It seems to me, whether it's stated or not, that Elections Canada will undertake a very aggressive, expedited process to get this in place by April 1, probably hoping we don't have an election in the interim. If we do have an election in the interim, because in our democracy we can trigger elections in various ways, what options do you have? Could you expand the writ period if you needed to go back and do that? What kind of pickle would you be in?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't have that option, and I won't need that option. I've got 301 wrapped up, and it's a matter of keeping the data up to date with respect to the register of electors, which is what we do when we get updates. For example, yesterday I got the file of electors from the Manitoba elections; we're going to be updating the file. We'll be getting the Ontario elections; we're going to be updating the file. We get motor vehicle information on a continuous basis from Quebec, from most of the provinces. So we'll keep 301 ready; we'll move on 308. As I said, we've got 11 pages of detailed activities all aimed at January 1 for Bill C-24 or March 31, should this bill come to pass.

Á (1125)

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And if the bill does not pass, we will be ready, obviously, in August if we're going to be ready in April.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I have to apologize to the committee. I'm a bit rusty. I didn't start with the official opposition, so I'm going to have two opposition members, and then we'll do the bounce back and forth. So we're going to start with Mr. Elley, then Mr. Guimond, and then we'll go to Ms. Longfield and come back over to Mr. Keddy, Mr. Regan, and Mr. Godin. They haven't left me in charge of anything in a long time, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley. I appreciate your presentation to the committee this morning.

Of course, those of us who have been around this place for a while know there are certain things that start to take place that give us a pretty good indication that an election is on the way. It's pretty hard to keep elections secret. I'm wondering, in respect of having everything ready to go by April 1, if you are now in the process of securing polling places in ridings.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We already have a computerized listing of potential polling places as a result of the last exercise with returning officers, which occurred last year. Part of what the new returning officers or the reappointed returning officers will do under the 301 or the 308 scenario is confirm and add to that list. The project is called iSITES, if I remember correctly, a computerized database we share with candidates and with the parties when they request. So that is part of what we're doing right now. We have it now, and we update it on a regular basis.

We also must keep in mind that no matter how well we plan, and that goes to the appointment of returning officers, it goes to the sites for polling places, there are changes at the very last minute, and our plans include contingencies for those changes. We had undertakings at the last elections with school boards for certain places. Some school boards pulled out at the last minute, and we had to find other places. This happens all the time. It's part of the vagaries of having the kind of electoral system we have.

Mr. Reed Elley: Of course, those of us who are incumbents, as soon as there is any whiff of an election in the air, start to get calls from people wanting to be poll clerks and this sort of thing. Is there any timeframe in which that happens that would give us an indication of when we can start saying, okay, we'll put you on the list, or it's too early, or whatever?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are two answers to that question, and they don't contradict one another. The first one relates to that whiff in the air to which you were referring earlier, and that's something about which I can do nothing. The second is the fact that the appointment of these people, the recommendation to the returning officer as to their names, can only come during the election. It's a very quick thing, and there's a stipulated number of hours in which they are required, so that the returning officer can move.

Mr. Reed Elley: So we'll say to them, we'll simply put you on the list.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, we have a French version and an English version of the letter you sent to our chairman, Mr. Adams. In it, you say that you sent a copy of that letter to Mr. Boudria, the government House Leader. So, although you don't say it in the letter, I believe I understood that Mr. Boudria asked you in advance whether a change of date would be feasible. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You never received a letter from Mr. Boudria?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, I never received a request from Mr. Boudria, either written or oral.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Did the member for LaSalle—Émard, Mr. Martin, write you as well?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No.

Mr. Michel Guimond: He didn't write you. That means that you wrote the letter on your own initiative. What was your purpose in sending the letter?

Á (1130)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I referred to it in the letter and in my text earlier as well. It was because of everything that was going on in the media, all the speculation, and I also had a certain fear that people would start to think that we could do that in February, March or at another time. I thought it was better to address the issue and clarify it.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Pardon me for interrupting you. What do you mean when you say that could be done in February or March? Do you mean it could be done a month or two before an election in April?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There was starting to be speculation that it could perhaps be done much earlier. Being an officer of Parliament, I wanted to tell you that, if Parliament intended to move on that issue, that was the best I could do so that there at least would be no incorrect speculation.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The best you could do was April 1. Why did you choose that date?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Because that was the best I could do. I looked at my plans and organized a meeting of my executive staff. We examined the factors that were necessary in order to do everything because the task is enormous, as you will agree. The parties tell me so today, I agree, and I also understand the task before you as potential candidates, particularly when there are changes to the electoral boundaries. I therefore decided that I had to state my position, and Parliament will do what it will with the letter.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The effective date of the representation order of 2003 provided for a period of one year after tabling of the last report of the last commission. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Ms. Davidson will answer that more precisely.

Ms. Diane Davidson (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): The representation order of 2003 applies for every election that is held one year after the order's effective date. The order was made on August 25, 2003. Consequently, any election that is held after August 25, 2004 would be under the new order.

Mr. Michel Guimond: In other words, you're saying what I just said. What determines the date of August 25? It's the tabling of the last commission's report. That was the drift of my question.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Once the final commission has presented its report, an order is made five days later.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You can see that we're two lawyers; we're unable to agree on the wording of the question. I hope we'll agree on the wording of the answer. What is the reason for this one-year period? Why is it one year? Why isn't it three months, six months or a half and a half?

Here's my next question. Why do we want to change it? There was no political interference in the process, which is neutral. What's the reason for the one-year period?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I tried to answer that question a moment ago, when I answered Mr. Jordan, Madam Chair. That's the contention that was established at the time on the basis of the needs of the parties, of the candidates and of the electoral machine that I now preside over.

What was your second question?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Why do we now want to move this April 2004 deadline forward? When you read Bill C-49, what reason do you see in it? You're testifying on the subject of C-49.

Á (1135)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Madam Chair, I believe it's up to Parliament to decide whether to amend the act or not, but I felt that it was my responsibility to inform Parliament of the best effort I could make because there was a lot of media speculation about that possibility, as I mentioned earlier. That's the only reason that led me to do that as Chief Electoral Officer. Why is the government making this proposal? You should ask the government.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Bill C-49 has been introduced in the middle of a process that already provided for a one-year time period. The entire process of revision of the electoral maps by the commissions in each of the provinces is a neutral, apolitical process, completely outside parliamentarianism, as is the institution of the Chief Electoral Officer. I believe in your neutrality, but we feel that Bill C-49 is a political intrusion in a process that was neutral. Can you comment on that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I believe it is entirely natural to debate this question in Parliament because Parliament exists in order to debate bills. That's what you're doing. I never understood that the bill needed Parliament's unanimous approval.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you.

I, for one, am delighted that there's the opportunity to advance this process. I'm from a rapidly growing area, and based on the last census, my community is some 83,000. A couple of days ago, when I drove by, I noticed that the sign now says 100,000. So in a very short time the population has increased dramatically. It may be political, as Mr. Guimond suggests, but I think it's incumbent upon those of us who are members of Parliament to encourage the powers that be to expedite this process, so that we truly have something that reflects the current reality. I think anything that delayed it, that could possibly make this whole thing not become a reality for four or five more years, would be outrageous. So I'm pleased that we're proceeding in trying to rectify a problem.

A number of the questions that I was going to ask were already raised by Mr. Jordan, but Mr. Kingsley, there are elections in Ontario and P.E.I. You indicated that October 15 was a date by which you hoped you might have revised voters lists. Will the Ontario and Prince Edward Island updates be ready by then, do you expect?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't think so, no. Ontario is 36% of the registry. Just the process is going to be.... I must receive the lists from the Chief Election Officer of Ontario, and he will not have finalized the list of electors for a while. I don't remember the timeframe, but it's definitely not October 15, and P.E.I. is the same, even though it is a small province.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Then how soon after that would we have an update?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As parliamentarians, you're entitled to a list once a year on October 15, with a snapshot on that date. Candidates are entitled to that list within days of the issue of the writ, and that is the last snapshot, with all the updates we have processed at that moment, that the candidates get.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So October 15 won't be reflective of Ontario and P.E.I.?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, it will not.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The rest I think was covered by Mr. Jordan.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Kingsley for appearing today.

I have a great deal of difficulty with at least the perception of your interference in this process, as an officer of Parliament and as someone who has been around this place for some time and understands the rules and procedures. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the rules have been broken, but they've certainly have been pushed upon. It's extremely troubling to me that although you answered Mr. Elley when he said that the scent of an election is in the air, you didn't really understand or follow that process, but yet when the scent of an election was in the air, you took it upon yourself to write to Mr. Boudria and to the committee suggesting that the government may want, without being asked, to set this process ahead. Ms. Longfield may think it's going to take five or six years to implement this, but it's April, it's five months, less five or six days, between August 25 and April 1. I don't understand.

Á (1140)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy, you're treading very close to the line, putting Mr. Kingsley in a very awkward position.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't think I've treaded over it yet, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): If you will let me finish, sir, I will let you ask him the question. Then I'm going to ask Mr. Jordan to explain how this all came about, because he was involved in it, but I would like you to get to your question, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With respect, Madam Chair, Mr. Jordan can explain, but I do have a question. Actually, I have three of them.

Regarding the discussion here on there being no requests from anyone for this, you took it upon yourself to put it forth, all right? If you look at all the possible scenarios for an election, I want to hear from you why we had to move this ahead five months...or suggest to the government that it could be moved ahead five months. Wouldn't it have been incumbent on the government to simply go to you, as Chief Electoral Officer, and say, “We're interested in an early election, and what are the possibilities?” That's up to the government; that's not your role.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, sir, as I tried to explain in my introductory remarks, I've been asked by this committee to feel free at any time to write to it on any topic that I feel is relevant to it. There was widespread speculation in the media, which I wanted to respond to, so that it would not go out of bounds in terms of my capacity to deliver. I did my best in arriving at April 1 in terms of planning.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And there was no political influence? It was simply responding to something that may or may not have happened?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is no undue political influence; there is no political influence that made me arrive at this.

I would like to explain something further. It is very important for the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to listen to anyone who wants to call, and to talk to him. It is also very important for the Chief Electoral Officer to feel that if there's a topic that he needs to address in order to help Parliament in any of its deliberations, he do what this committee has agreed that he should do. I have not abused that in the past, but this was one instance where I felt it was important to state my position.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question on the voters list, for instance, though the question was asked already.

In the provincial elections that were held, there were a lot of mistakes in the voters list. I should have brought it with me, but off the top of my head I'm trying to remember that 12% or 22% of the electorate was not on the list for the provincial election just held in Nova Scotia. Are you aware of that, and what process is in place to register those electors?

I don't think we're going to be able to accept at face value the provincial list, so I'd also like to know what percent of the electorate wasn't on the list in New Brunswick and what percent won't be on the list in P.E.I. That information should be out, and it should be information that you should have.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, the—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me, but it was high in Nova Scotia. I don't have the number and I want to be exact, but I think it was 22%. It was a huge number.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think the percentage to which you allude was for the number of electors not at the address, but our lists contain 92% of the electorate on average. On average, we have over 80% of them at the right address, which means that at every election, the revisal period is aimed at correcting those addresses. That's why we do targeted revisions and why we ask you as candidates to give us information about people who call you, so that we can act on that.

At the start of every election, the returning officers will provide each candidate with a quality statement of the list for each riding. They were supposed to do this at the last election, but I found out that it was not respected, so I will issue it as a directive next time. Each candidate will have it, and we will also share with each candidate where we think targeted revision should take place. In those listings, we will include those places where candidates feel targeted revision should also take place.

Plus, at the next election, we will also have a capacity with our computers to move electors from one riding to another when there's an address change requiring that—and not leave them on the former list, which is one of the issues that was prevalent until now. This capacity did not exist in the Nova Scotia election.

Lastly, we will also have the capacity, as the law requires, to register people on polling day. We will really flood the media with that. That is the fail-safe to any computerized list.

Á (1145)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy, I'm going to put you on the next list to come back, because you've gone over six and a half minutes.

For my own edification, Mr. Kingsley, one of your jobs as Chief Electoral Officer is obviously to monitor the minutes of this committee. Is that not true?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): During these committee meetings, in my recollection, Mr. Jordan, who is always a little troublemaker, has asked three or four times if it's possible to back up this date, has he not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I alluded to the fact that this was discussed a number of times at this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): So if you're monitoring our minutes, as you should be doing, you would notice that the subject has come up from our committee members at least three or four times. That would inspire you to respond to it, as you have done, would it not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If I felt I should respond, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is a judgment that I feel is entirely mine.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): As I say, I recall our bringing it up at this committee at least three or four times before you ever sent your letter. So I really wish we'd drop this little witch hunt that Mr. Kingsley is on some political mission. He's the least political guy on the Hill, actually.

Yes, Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I must say that your attitude surprises me. And yet I sat with you on the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business. However, unless you wanted to make I don't know what point—that you're of the calibre of a chairperson, for example, of which I am convinced—you needn't attribute intentions to colleagues who ask questions. This is a privilege that is granted to us. Mr. Kingsley is in Parliament's service and paid—at least, he isn't a volunteer—to serve democracy. I believe he gave a very good answer and that he feels comfortable, in dealing with questions not within his field, to tell us that the subject is a political matter.

I admit I took the risk of asking a political question. I tried it, yes, and I confess, but until someone tells me differently, we are in politics; I dare believe we are not a religious community. Mr. Kingsley is able to tell us that a question does not fall within his area of authority. Madam Chair, with all due respect, you needn't make any comments about witch hunts.

We are members of Parliament and we want answers. When I asked whether Paul Martin or Don Boudria had written to him to ask that the date be changed, he answered me.

Things are going quite well in this committee, but we can make real trouble if...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, I accept your reprimand. I was out of line, I'm sorry.

I will, though, ask everybody on the committee to continue by asking questions, not by giving speeches and not by casting aspersions on motives. Let's stick to asking questions.

If that suits you, Mr. Guimond, then I will apologize for my inappropriate statement.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Good.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I have another point of order, Madam Chair. Every question requires a preamble, and, in my view, it's up to me to decide on the preamble and on my question. I haven't needed to ask a question directly in any other committee where I've been. We always proceed by comment and question. I've been in Parliament for six and a half years, and, with all due respect, as Mr. Guimond said, no chairperson has ever refused to allow me to decide on my preamble and my question. It's the role of the witnesses to answer our questions.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

This committee has always been fairly non-partisan and very civilized, and I would hope we stay that way.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, with respect to today's witness, the problem is that Bill C-49 concerns politics. It's hard to avoid that fact. You will have to give us a chance to ask our questions; otherwise it's not worth having a witness appear before this committee. I don't think you have to protect the political aspect; it's up to us to do it.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Kingsley, thank you for coming today. You've been the Chief Electoral Officer for how long now?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thirteen years, and let me count the days.

Mr. Geoff Regan: With the time you've had, is it a fair question to ask you what your view is about the public interest in terms of how quickly after a census boundaries that reflect that census come into effect and elections follow, in keeping with that census?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think it's a general consensus that the process...because a census takes place in a year ending in 01, before the results come out and before the commissions are struck, there's a significant lapse of time. As a matter of fact, you were mentioning that a subcommittee of this committee will be looking at aspects of redistribution. I must tell you I'm also considering tabling a report on the whole process based on a conference I held recently with the chairs and in some cases a few substitutes of those very commissions--I think it was a week and a half ago.

So this committee is seized with that, and it can decide if there's anything that can be done to improve the timelines and the process. I think we have more and more tools now at our disposal that allow us to consider significant changes to timelines on various aspects of the whole process.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.

Madam Chair, through you, I'd like to ask a question that relates to something my colleague Mr. Keddy has raised and is of interest to me also in relation to the Nova Scotia election. The question is, has that election provided information to you? In other words, at each polling station, people were registered and there were corrections made. People might have had to swear in and give information about themselves, and people who were registered during the election, of course, were added to the list. Are the address corrections and additions made during that process transferred to Elections Canada?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To the best of my recollection, we have that agreement with Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact, I'm sure we do, because that was the condition...well, it's not a condition--I will help any colleague in terms of the electoral process. But that is one of the agreements we struck with the Nova Scotia Chief Electoral Officer.

But I want to be precise about this. I haven't had a detailed report yet, and I would expect one. I will be reading what she has to say as well. But the lists were not directly transposed for use. She was able to massage the list further with other data to which she has access as Chief Electoral Officer. So it wasn't a straight transposition of the federal lists into the provincial election.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Okay. Let me ask you, then, where we've seen a number of provincial elections this year, would it be fair to expect that in each of those provinces the federal list should be somewhat more...how much more accurate would you imagine they would be, or is that a fair question? Can you tell me the percentage? Can you give me an estimate, that it ought to be more accurate in those places? Should the number be higher than 80% in terms of addresses and so forth?

What do you expect in that regard?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer is a qualified yes, and the qualification has to do with that imponderable variable called time. I will use a figure of six months. If there are six months, nine months, between a provincial election and a federal election, the use of those lists is still useful, but obviously not as useful as it would be if an election were held within a couple of months after a provincial election. It is useful because the motor vehicle information is good, but it's not perfect. A lot of people, Canadians being Canadians, don't change their address for their driver's licence until something happens.

So there's that.

Eighty-four percent of people check off the box that says yes, alter my data on the income tax form. That still means that 16% don't, and that's 16% of the data that's not up to date.

But we all understood this at the start. What we're doing is working on improving the coverage, and the agreements with the provincial chief electoral officers are so significantly improved in that respect that I would expect there will be significant improvements. We will see this in the numbers that come out when we provide you with statements on the accuracy of the list.

Á (1155)

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to welcome you as well.

At the start of your presentation, you said you were going to leave for Latvia. Without knowing why you're going there, I'm sure it's to promote the democracy that prevails in Canada, to instruct people in the way our elections are held. As soon as I heard the news, I thought that would be your role.

On the subject of electoral boundaries readjustment, you said, if I remember correctly, that you hadn't checked Hansard or all the details of the Act in the year it came into force—I think it was 1964. Now, once again, if I understand correctly, you're saying that, based on the information you have, you can change the date by electronic means.

Is it possible that, at the time when the one-year period was established, because of this democracy in which you believe—and I have no doubt about that—people had the chance to file law suits during a readjustment and that judges had the time to render a decision? The question isn't just who and where we stand. Judges don't render decisions in a month; we're talking about a long procedure. We won't comment on the judicial review instituted this week by the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick in the context of the electoral boundaries readjustment in New Brunswick.

In democracies, people should be able to follow through with all proceedings. Don't you also think that could be part of this, or have you studied the case? Was the electronic aspect the only issue or was there something else as well?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In my letter, I took care to mention that we had to consult other stakeholders or that those stakeholders had to take part in parliamentarians' proceedings, that included the political parties, candidates or members of Parliament. That was tantamount to admitting that, in addition to the Chief Electoral Officer, other stakeholders also had an influence. That's the position I have maintained each time you've addressed the subject here. I've checked the transcripts.

As for legal actions, I haven't taken them into account. I must admit that the Elections Act is probably the most challenged piece of legislation from a constitutional standpoint. Since the Charter has been in existence, all matters electoral have been the most highly contested. With each election, I'm faced with a host of decisions, based on a court judgment or an injunction. That's part of the things I must take into account.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But don't you agree that it's different here? The game's already been played. We know now that there was an adjustment committee and that the act grants a period of 12 months. The only entity that can call an election is the government, which holds the majority in Parliament. So a bill such as this...

You talk about consulting the political parties; in fact, there have been no consultations. Bill C-49 was presented to us without there being any consultations, and now, with this bill, there are three parties that... [Editor's Note : Inaudible] In spite of democracy, it is the party in power that will call the election, that will have the power to vote and to postpone the date, and perhaps even to abolish that aspect of democracy which makes it possible to go to court to have a decision rendered.

Lastly, that has to be taken into consideration; otherwise, tomorrow, the party in power, since it's a majority, would be able to circumvent everything.

Â (1200)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But that's democracy, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Perhaps, but you have to allow time in a democracy. At least that's what I think. If that's part of the rule according to which a person can take a commission to court... By the way, the commission in question is dissolved.

For example, Madam Chair, when I asked the commission where the boundary between Allardville and Saint-Sauveur was and what persons were involved, I was told that no one could answer me because the commission no longer existed. I then put the question to Elections Canada. This is September 25, and no one has yet been able to answer me.

Now you are telling us that you're going to remake the entire electoral map of Canada in five months. Are you afraid, Mr. Kingsley, that it will be a fiasco and that it will then be too late?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Let met tell you one thing. If something happens and I can't be ready for April 1, this committee will be the first to know, supposing the bill is passed. If it isn't passed, my deadline is August 25 and I'm not ready, I'll do the same thing. I'll inform Parliament immediately, and perhaps tender my resignation. I'm obliged to do so.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin, we're going to finish the first round and then I'll put you on again.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thanks.

This is just to clarify a couple of things. We're amending a bill passed a number of years ago that established this one-year timeframe. Having been on the subcommittee that reviewed the objections from members of Parliament, I can tell you that the technology that was used in this round as compared to that of the first round was like night and day. I'm not sure why we have a year at all, and even the six or seven months you're going to have now should be plenty of time because of the new technologies you have.

But one of the things that's important, and I know even from my own constituency, is that now we have the new ridings where people have been informed, should the election take place after whatever day next year, that there's going to be this new.... They're ready for the new boundaries now. Once it's decided, they just want them. They don't even want to keep their old MPs organized. They just want you to be the new MP and move forward.

So there is some education process that's important, but certainly from when this bill was originally written to the situation now with the improvements you have...should we be changing the law to say it should be just six months from when the committee process...or should there be even less time from when this process is finished? Should we be actually looking to do that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, this is what I was alluding to in an earlier response. As I understand it, the subcommittee you chair will be looking at improving the whole process, and that may well include considering various timelines. I certainly intend to broach those topics in a report I will be tabling with this committee on the whole process, and that will be one of the things I will be looking at in terms of my running the electoral machinery that is the basis for the whole process.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think some of the other people who are around this table now would agree that probably more time needs to be built into the front end before the decision is made rather than after the decisions are made. The public is rightfully concerned about the process and whether or not they get an opportunity to object on a second round. That's something that the subcommittee would like to reconsider.

Â (1205)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We had a very fruitful exchange with the chairs and they came out with recommendations as well. One of them was that they should be appointed two months before the process starts instead of just on that day. Another was for extending further the types of seminars or conferences we held with them on the various topics that should be explored more deeply. I'll be reporting on all of this, including timeframes for doing different things.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Second, I've been incredibly impressed with this province. They've done an amazing job of getting the message out about why it's important to vote. It'll be interesting to see the analysis of whether the ads have worked, but certainly there are billboards, newspaper ads, television commercials, and all kinds of communication about how important it is. They've changed some of their process at the provincial level to encourage more people to participate.

What kind of budget are you planning on, or what kind of process are you going to put in place to make sure that if the election is after April 1--or whenever the election is, frankly, because it doesn't matter...? What are we doing to make sure that more people participate and more people, perhaps in Nova Scotia or wherever else where there are problems getting their names on the list, know they can be proactive about getting on the list and that they have an opportunity here?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We're in the throes of finalizing the media campaign that will prevail under one scenario and the campaign under another scenario, and when I talk about two scenarios, it's 301 versus 308. We're waiting because we will be getting feedback from John Hollins, the Chief Election Officer of Ontario, who's a real go-getter. We will want feedback from him.

I will also want to consider the feedback you as a committee provided me on the ads we produced at the last election. We want to be very proactive. We're also engaging right now.... I started this some months back, and there's going to be a conference in Calgary, where we're going to meet with youth, community leaders, and people from the private sector to consider the whole issue of youth involvement in the electoral process. The youth are really the bulk of the non-electors. We've commissioned studies that indicate this, and they're all on our website. I think I always refer to them when I appear here; they're from different universities and different professors and they're all on the website.

We will be focusing principally on youth, but in terms of reaching out about the revisions, we will have ads that will make this very clear. I will not allow confusion to reign, as some members reported. They felt there was some at the last election, so we're correcting that as well.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Lastly, if the basis for the election list is the tax filings--

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's one.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is there enough time to turn that information around from when people have filed taxes in 2004 to April?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, they have to file by April 30, 2004, so if the election is called on April 1, I don't think the list will contain their names.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If they haven't moved, it will contain their name, and if they have moved, then they'll be listed at their old place.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, because we will also have obtained vital statistics information from the provinces on those people who are deceased. We will have obtained the files from the various provinces. For example, and this is exemplary, there is the relationship with the Province of Quebec. The Province of Quebec has a fantastic list, and we get updates from the Province of Quebec that we incorporate in our list on a cyclical basis. It's every three months. All those updates take place all the time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really don't have a lot of questions on the process. I appreciate the fact that some members do. I found in the past that we've had excellent relations with Elections Canada. Returning officers are trained. They train deputy returning officers. With the exception of some very minor things, and I'm sure every parliamentarian goes through them, the election runs very smoothly.

I really am concerned about the registration of electors. Understand that the percentage of electors who were registered at the wrong address and therefore had to be sworn in at the polling booth in Nova Scotia were only out of the percentage of people who voted. There's a huge percentage of people who don't vote, so that percentage is actually very problematic. It's a lot higher than we realize. It's not a question; that's just a comment.

Not to belabour this to death, and I appreciate what the chair has said, but we do live in a political environment and we do have a five-month adjustment here in a bill. We've also had an adjustment in an election financing bill.

I would like to see some recommendations come out of this process, in all honesty, Madam Chair, and from the Chief Electoral Officer as well.

If we're going to put 10-year deadlines in place, there should be some understanding that a government can call an election whenever they want.

You said it. Your 301 ridings are ready to go whenever the government wants to go. With the census information and the boundary changes, which are only reasonable and responsible so they can represent more Canadians, coming in on August 25, it's only rational that at this time they would come in.

This is not an accusation on your credibility or your job. I'm very uncomfortable with moving everything ahead five months to fit into a slot that may be more opportune for political reasons, regardless of governments in power or governments that will be in power in the future. I would hope that somehow we could come out of this.

You know, we've embarked on the process, and we're going to be ready on April 1. The bill will go through Parliament, but I would hope that we could avoid that in the future. I don't know what recommendations we can make or what process we can make, but I'm very uncomfortable with the process.

This is more of a statement than a question, but I wouldn't mind hearing Mr. Kingsley's comment on that because I think you can understand in partisan politics, even though you're aloof from it--

Â (1210)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Or in the thick of it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: --you know the difficulties that arise. I would always hope it would be the other way around, that government would come to the Chief Electoral Officer saying, “Listen, these are the parameters. We'd like to change this.” Then, as a servant of Parliament, I see it as your duty to do that, versus a possibility that something might happen.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I see the issue this way, sir. If the committee decides it no longer wants to hear from me when I have something to say of my own free will, I will respect that. I just need to be told.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I wasn't quite going that far.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Okay. Well, I will also add another comment, sir. I produced a report on November 25, 2001, I think it was, on improving the electoral process. My recollection is that it didn't meet with unanimous approval from all quarters. It's not possible to do the job in the way that I see the job without pleasing and displeasing at the same time, even though I wish I could please everybody at the same time or displease everybody at the same time. It's not possible. I try to do it honestly. I try to do it as completely apolitically as possible, and I will not accept political interference on the part of anyone in my duties. You will be the first to hear if that happens.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Are you finished, Mr. Keddy? I wouldn't want to cut you off.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I'm finished.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): All right.

Mr. Jordan, Mr. Guimond, and then Mr. Godin.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Maybe for the committee's sake...I don't want to claim I pushed this snowball down the mountain, but I was up there when it happened. What happened was--and I'll give you my reasons why I kept bringing this up--my riding was one that was slated for a major change, and Mr. Elley, when I went to get my tea, commented on my plurality. I mean, that's the reality I was dealing with. I had people mad as hornets about the change. I came in here and I think maybe the first question I asked you last fall was “Why a year?” My thought was, we're going to have a situation where we may very well have an election under the old boundaries after the new boundaries are announced, and the chunk of my riding that wasn't happy is going to take it out on Mr. 55 and I'll be toast. As much as I tried to maybe frame it, it was very self-serving, and I was on that like a dog on a bone.

I brought it up again when we had the provincial people here. I asked them if they understood the implications, because in Ontario their boundary changes change when we change ours. So we may try to get our change in a window that doesn't have political implications. That was my concern, self-serving as it was. I didn't think the process should have political implications.

If you have a situation with a timeline where you've announced the new ridings but run under the old ones, it is an unnecessary interference politically in the process. It's always a lesser number of evils, but that was my concern.

I brought it up again in connection with Bill C-24 because my concern was that we were going to change the rules for riding associations and then change riding associations at a different time.

The fourth time I brought it up, I was told--you weren't here--that the House leaders were looking at it, and that's where I left it. That was last spring.

I was pushing on this thing for a variety of reasons, but I want to say that as transparent as my reasons were, this didn't come out of left field. I was very concerned about that issue. Now, as fate would have it, the changes got reversed and my riding isn't affected anyway.

My question, though, goes to what Mr. Guimond said, because after thinking about this for a year, it's the first time he has brought up a reason, potentially, why the 12 months is important, and that is a court case. Now, there was a court case last time--

Â (1215)

Mr. Yvon Godin: That was Mr. Godin, not Guimond.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Oh sorry, Mr. Godin. My apology.

So last time there was a court case, but it didn't stop the process, did it? Unless there's an injunction, Parliament goes ahead.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The courts proceed on their own. If there's a need for precipitate action, there's a possibility of seeking injunctions on one side or the other, or to hold an injunction. All of these things happen quite rapidly, not within a day, but certainly this happens within a matter of a couple of days or weeks.

Now, the normal process, if that is followed in the courts, takes longer. We all know this. That's what it's all about. But if there's a need for quick action, the courts respond.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Since 1964, are you aware of any...? These things are always emotional; they're always political. Since this act came into force with the 12-month coming into force period, have the courts ever responded to action with an injunction?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. Nothing has ever happened--

Mr. Joe Jordan: Oh, it's never happened.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: --to prevent the results from happening.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, thanks.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To the best of my knowledge.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I should have let “Landslide Jordan” handle it. I shouldn't have interjected when I did, should I, Mr. Guimond? He did a much more diplomatic job.

Next we have Mr. Guimond and then Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, are you aware that Mr. Boudria, the Government House Leader, is preparing to table a bill on electoral district name changes?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Not yet.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You're not aware?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I was informed that it was a possibility.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You're so careful in your answers. There's no trick question. He didn't suggest that he had interfered. He told me that you were aware.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Guimond, I've previously had occasion...

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm going to declare you a hostile witness and I'm going to have you sworn.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I've previously had occasion to speak with you, which I've always appreciated, particularly when I've come here, and I know that your questions are very precise. Am I aware that he wants to table a bill? I knew that he intended to discuss the matter and I shuddered when I heard that. That's why I had that reaction, a very honest reaction. I shuddered, and I said to myself: “Not again.” That's exactly what I've just told you.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You see how beautiful democracy is!

I'll continue with my idea. If Mr. Boudria tabled his bill on electoral district name changes on Bill C-49 were passed, those name changes could enter into effect for an election held on or after April 1, 2004. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I hope you'll invite me to testify then. If the timing is good, I'll tell you whether I can be ready or not and whether that jeopardizes the effective date, because changing names results in changes for my systems as well.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We put the question to Mr. Boudria because we know from your service that it would be more costly for taxpayers to change a district name later. That's the information your office gave us.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'd like to recall a fact. If a new name had more than 50 characters, that would result in much higher costs.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The names submitted to Mr. Boudria have a maximum of 49 characters, including spaces, apostrophes and hyphens.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If it's done quickly, I'll be able to implement those changes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I say that to show that Parliament is the supreme democratic body. You've met the 10 commission chairs since the last report from Quebec and Ontario was presented. Some members of certain commissions, whom I will not name, said they had fun with the name changes and that there would be no more district names comprising three or four names.

I point out that Parliament is the supreme democratic body, not the members of the commissions, all the more so since they no longer have any legal identity and, like babies who die before being baptized, are in limbo. The commissions are now in limbo, and members of Parliament have the power to make the name changes. We like it like that.

Â (1220)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Once you've changed the names, I'll change them on the spot as well.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

Here's my second question. You have a very good memory, Mr. Kingsley. Following the 2000 election, you tabled your report of November 27, 2001. I also know that you read the committee's minutes when you are present and you read the transcripts of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when you're absent. My party entirely agrees on one recommendation, that returning officers be appointed as they are in other provinces, following an open, transparent process devoid of all political partisanship. I'm happy to see that my Liberal colleagues opposite are indicating assent, which means they are nodding their heads and are in agreement. So we agree on your request.

I quote a passage from your letter to Mr. Adams:

In order to implement the new boundaries by April 1, 2004, the appointment of the returning officers needs to be completed by mid-September 2003.

These are the last few days of September. Next week will be the last week of September. To date, how many returning officers have been appointed so that Bill C-49— because my questions still concern Bill C-49, Madam Chair—can enter into force on April 1? How many returning officers have been appointed to date?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: About 10 have been appointed or reappointed to date. Next week, there will be 100, 100 the week after, and unless I'm mistaken, and others will be appointed in the following days.

Mr. Michel Guimond: So we'll have enough time. You know, Mr. Kingsley, that we have to meet the incumbents because it's possible they might be different persons in the districts that are changing. We ask to meet them, among other things, for the inventory. You were kind to come and visit... There's the entire question of the polling stations, things that were done all wrong the other time. The new incumbent will have to be made well aware of that. We couldn't speak with the present incumbent until he had been reappointed since we knew that our district was changing.

Â (1225)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Please be very brief, Mr. Kingsley. You're at seven minutes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will come back in the third round.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The training sessions with the returning officers begin in mid-October. We do that in a cascading manner. We're going to make them aware of all that over eight days, and then we'll communicate with you to start the entire process on the basis of 308 potential seats.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have one final question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Your clone is probably talking at the meeting of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties because I know that the representative of my political party is going to ask him this question. You're going to have to advertise to inform electors. I'll give you the example of the greater Quebec City area, which has 500,000 electors, half of whom are changing electoral districts. I hope you've set aside funds in your budgets to inform electors that their district has changed, to explain to them where the new boundaries are and so on. That will be your responsibility.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You needn't fear. The statutory spending authority applies to all advertising relating to the 308 seats. I don't need prior authorization for that, and I'm going to do it.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, thank you.

Monsieur Godin, be very brief if you can, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I could, yes.

I can understand that, if there was an election in April or May, with the new electoral districts being added in certain provinces, it would be important that the public be able to have that representation. But there are still 10 members in New Brunswick. You're a bit familiar with the dynamic that there as in New Brunswick. If there was an amendment in Bill C-49 to exclude New Brunswick for the process for that election, could that disturb Elections Canada?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Madam Chair, I must abstain from answering that question because a suit has been filed in New Brunswick and my answer could have an impact even though it might seem not to. So Mr. Godin, I ask you to pardon me, but I won't be able to answer that question because it could be related to the case which is in court.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have one final question. We're trying to see whether this is political or not political; we had those little disputes earlier. In your report, would you be prepared to give the example of ministers responsible for certain provinces who suggest to the Speaker of the House names of persons who could act as commission members across Canada? That's political influence.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Godin, I'm going to see how I can address that question in the report I'm going to submit.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much. That is the end of the questioning of Mr. Kingsley.

Thank you for appearing here today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you all very much.

[Translation]

Thank you all committee members.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I would like to move to the next order of business, which is clause-by-clause of the bill, to amend the implementation date to April 1, 2004. There's only one clause.

Mr. Guimond, you have the floor

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would simply like to inform you of one thing. I believe that the Clerk—I'm saying this in an entirely friendly and simply way—may have taken a local or personal initiative to emphasize that we could move on to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I simply want to tell committee members that we have a few witnesses to hear because were are opposed to the bill. These won't be dilatory measures. We won't have 22 or 24 witnesses; we want to have a few appear.

Madam Chair, I want to tell you one thing that I would tell Mr. Adams if he were here, and that is that we had no meeting on our future work before starting that study. We spoke about our future work, in camera, yes, but we did not study together how the passage of Bill C-49 would take place. That's why I am undertaking to submit a list of witnesses to the Clerk by this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon at the latest. But, I repeat, this is not a dilatory measure. I won't come with a list of 20 witness; I have a few witnesses to have heard on behalf of my party.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Â (1230)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree. Personally, I have an amendment that I gave the Clerk and it was received, and I also intend to present witnesses so that we are able to discuss the situation. The committee has not even had the chance to meet because that was referred to a sub-committee. It was supposed to be referred to a sub-committee. In fact, we aren't the sub-committee; this is the main committee that is sitting today. In any case, I think that's anticipating matters.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it's good that we've heard today from the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a very straightforward bill. We don't often get to see bills that have one clause of 30 words, or thereabouts. It's not complicated to examine what that provides.

I think most of us understand and know that in 1993 the election was not fought based on the 1991 census; it was fought based on a census of 12 years before. The first election conducted under the 1991 census was not until 1997, six years later. That seems to be a bit long. If the next election is not conducted under the 2001 census, then the first election under that census, in all likelihood, will not be until 2008, some seven years after the census takes place. That would make it that much further way from the reality of the current situation in the country at the time the election takes place.

It seems to me that in a democracy we want the election and the nature of the boundaries in that election to reflect the population distribution in the country as much as possible, within our constitutional limitations. I think we all recognize the need to have new boundaries take effect as soon as possible after a census takes place.

We've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that he was aware of the speculation that began in this committee. All parties took part in that speculation discussion. In fact, to suggest that he's responsible for starting that speculation or for responding to it improperly when it was started here in this committee is a little inappropriate and unfair.

At any rate, the key point here is that our electors would not expect us to go into an election in 2004 based on a census that was 13 years old. It's incumbent upon us to move ahead as quickly as possible with this important legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Regan.

I think I will ask Mr. Guimond to move a motion to suggest that we hear more witnesses. We'll debate it briefly and vote on it. If that motion fails, we can look at clause-by-clause, at which point Mr. Godin can put in his amendment.

It that suitable to the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: First I want to notify my colleagues that I have no intention of introducing a motion to that effect. We have always talked and made decisions on a consensual basis. If my motion is defeated by a majority of the committee members, I believe we'll immediately commence the clause-by-clause consideration. I'm not going to introduce a motion, but I'm going to talk until I'm completely exhausted. I'm going to start a filibuster.

In the consideration of Bill C-20, I spoke for five hours and 45 minutes straight. I warn you, Madam Chair. I don't think that's a good idea. I suggest we adjourn. If Mr. Regan thinks there are benefits in acting like a bulldozer, he'll see the effect. He can cause a lot of trouble in a lot of committees. I informed him that I have no intention of introducing a motion.

We've always presented lists of witnesses, and I don't intend to act like a bulldozer. You'll defeat my motion. I won't start. I'm not introducing a motion. I ask you to suspend the proceedings to allow me to submit a short list of witnesses. I don't have 20 witnesses; this isn't a dilatory manoeuvre, but I would like to have some witnesses heard next week. That's what I wanted to say.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, I am sorely tempted to provoke you into speaking for 45 minutes, because I always enjoy listening to you speak, but I will not do that.

If you don't want to move the motion, then the committee could entertain a short list of witnesses.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, I wonder if it would be possible to settle on these witnesses early enough so that we could hear from them on Tuesday and go through clause-by-clause on Tuesday.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Would that be acceptable, Mr. Guimond?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I've spoken. It's possible on Tuesday. If the list of witnesses is not long, we can meet on Tuesday evening. If witnesses are not available Tuesday, we'll see how things go, at the risk of passing the bill on Thursday. I repeat, these are not dilatory measures, but I want to have witnesses heard.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Through you to Mr. Guimond, I came here with my own questions and concerns, and I thought Mr. Kingsley handled them. Can you just give me an idea who these witnesses are and what they might be bringing to the picnic?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I know, Mr. Jordan. You're so competent than you come with your list of witnesses. However, I'm so incompetent that I need to be advised by witnesses. I don't have a monopoly on the truth and I don't have any mystical vision. He said he had his list of witnesses and I wanted to respond to that. As for me, I come with my list of questions. Ask Mr. Kingsley whether I really have a list of questions. I'm not yet able to answer you, but the clerk will have that list of witnesses as soon as possible, this afternoon or tomorrow.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm not questioning your competence. I'm sincerely wondering what are the areas of concern. I'm just trying to get a handle on it. I went down Mr. Godin's road. I thought that was a good point about the year delay. I'm just trying to sort out what the obstacles are to what looks like a very technical change to speed up a process that is going to happen anyway and that better reflects the populations in the various ridings. I'm just curious. We can wait until we hear from the witnesses, but I'm just wondering if you know now why you want witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: As I told you, I'm going to submit my list and we'll hear the witnesses. I haven't telegraphed those witnesses and I don't know what message they want to transmit. Groups have approach us because they have things to say about Bill C-49, which changes the effective date of the order from August to April. Groups have approached us to talk about it. I don't know what they want to tell us, but we'll question them, as we've questioned Mr. Kingsley, and as we question all witnesses who come to testify before us.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, can I ask you a question. If we were to suggest that you give your list to the clerk this afternoon and that the list shall not exceed what can take us more than one meeting to do and we block out Tuesday morning for your meeting, would this be an agreement you could make with us?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Chair, I get the impression you want to interfere with my right to be heard. I gave you an order of magnitude. I said there wouldn't be 20, that this was not a dilatory measure, but I can't commit to having this testimony last only one day. A day comprises 24 hours. I'm going to give you another argument. Bill C-49 contains only one clause, and it won't take long to pass it. It would be different if my list consisted of 150 witnesses and the bill had 642 clauses. We would likely find it hard to do everything in one day. I can't tell you what my list will contain right now. Furthermore, things have never happened that way in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the study of any other bill. The number of witnesses we want to present has never been limited to two or three. Why would that start today? Why do you want to interfere with my right to ask the committee to hear witnesses? Why? I repeat: this bill has only one clause.

Â (1240)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, with absolute respect—because you and I have worked together for a very long time—your opening remark was that you would not present a motion today to be defeated. Your second remark was that you would filibuster. Your third remark now is that you want to hear witnesses, but you can't tell us how many.

Now, I want to be as reasonable as possible. I'm trying to make amends for my earlier error. If you can say to us there will be three witnesses and select your three most important witnesses and we could schedule them for Tuesday morning, I think we could easily all agree to that without anybody filibustering, without anybody yelling, without anybody getting excited. That's all I would like you to do. We want to cooperate. I particularly want to cooperate.

If you could say to us you will present your most important three for Tuesday morning, we'll schedule that meeting. I would be more than pleased to do that, and we will all, I assume, on this side of the table be pleased to do it, and Mr. Godin would be pleased.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm not currently in a position to tell you whether it will be limited to three. There may be two, maybe one. I'm not even able to tell you whether we're talking about a maximum of three. Madam Chair, where does it say in the Standing Orders that the number of witnesses can be limited to three?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Wait a minute. Stop. I lost my translation, in which case I'm useless.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm going to put my questions to Jamie since he sent you the papers. Never in the study of any other bill has the number of witnesses been limited in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If you want to act this way from now on, perfect. I refuse to speak that way because I would call that attitude “uncooperative”.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Okay, Mr. Guimond, I'm going to make another suggestion: that all members of the committee, including the government side, submit a list of potential witnesses by 5 p.m. on Friday; that the steering committee meet Monday morning and make a selection from the list; and that we schedule an invitation to those people for Tuesday. How's that?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Perfect.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Then we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration if we have finished with the witnesses. If we don't, we reschedule.

Come on, don't go for everything.

Mr. Michel Guimond: He wants to be a minister here. We are part of the scheme. Geoff will be a good minister from Nova Scotia. We are part of the scheme.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Is that agreeable to the members? Is this good for everybody?

How about the other side? Does anybody wish to speak on this side?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: All I wanted to say is,

[Translation]

that it is hard sometimes for witnesses to appear here and that they may prefer to send a message to the committee.

[English]

You can accept their written testimony.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): What we normally do is the steering committee makes a selection of invitees. If they can't come, they can send a submission. We always do it that way.

Does everybody agree to this?

Okay. I'm going to adjourn the meeting.