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, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 6, 2004

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

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

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1110

1115

1120

1125

1130

1135

1140

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1145

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1150

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1155

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Luc Dumont (Director of Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1200

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

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1205

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

1210

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1215

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

1220

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Ms. Diane Davidson

The Chair

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

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mrs. Judi Longfield

1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1230

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Rennie Molnar (Senior Director, Register and Geography, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Rennie Molnar

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

1235

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

1240

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Luc Dumont

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Diane Davidson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

1245

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rennie Molnar

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rennie Molnar

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1250

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Luc Dumont

1255

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Luc Dumont

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1300

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Ms. Diane Davidson

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

1305

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Diane Davidson

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 019

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 6, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): We're here pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iv), matters relating to the election of members to the House of Commons.

Our witnesses are Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada; Diane Davidson, deputy chief electoral officer and chief legal counsel; Rennie Molnar, senior director, register and geography--as a graduate in geography, I welcome you; Luc Dumont, director of operations; and Brian Cromie, associate director, register of electors.

I need to explain to the committee that we invited representatives of Canada Post. They indicated they were contacted by a number of MPs and prefer to talk to those MPs first to see what unfolds at this meeting. They will be glad to come to our next meeting.

I welcome our witnesses here.

Mr. Kingsley, I understand you have a statement. We'd be grateful if you'd proceed with that. I'll explain the question and answer procedure afterwards.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley.

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

I wish to thank the committee for inviting me to this committee and for agreeing that I be attended by some of the people who have been working on this full-time since we were invited. You can almost double the number and that will tell you how many people have been working just to prepare this.

We will be discussing the voter registration program. You've already introduced the people who are with me, so I will start by saying that during my appearance before this committee last March 25 on the main estimates for my office for 2004-05, I provided an overview of voter registration as an integral component of our overall planning and priorities. I gave you numbers on the quality of the lists and I talked to you about the savings that were accruing and the processes we had put in place.

Today I will provide an even more in-depth briefing on this topic, in light of the opportunity this affords me, but within the context of our preparations for the next election. This will take some 25 minutes. After I update you on the register of electors, I will address the issues raised by Mr. Godin. I will then provide an overview of our plans for revision at the next general election, including for undelivered mail. Finally, I will talk about our communications program to support voter registration.

I will deliver my remarks in the language in which they were prepared by my staff, following the request to appear before you that I received at noon on May 4, less than 48 hours ago. For that reason, the text of my remarks cannot be circulated--as I usually do and have done in the 14 years I've been here--in both official languages, which I deeply regret.

The Chair: We understand that. Can I confirm that the translators have a copy?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have provided them with a bootleg copy, Mr. Chairman. You told me not to circulate anything, and I always follow what the chair wants.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Let me begin by briefly reviewing the fundamentals of the national register of electors program. The register is a computerized database containing the name, date of birth, and residential and mailing addresses—the key to this matter—for the more than 22 million Canadians eligible to vote in the forthcoming general election. It is kept up to date between elections centrally by my office using administrative data sources—I'll explain them—and it is updated during the election by returning officers through a range of methods collectively termed “revision”. That's what the law calls them.

The register is used to produce the preliminary list of electors provided to candidates once the writs are issued at the start of the election and to mail each registered elector a voter information card providing information on where and when to vote and how to contact their local returning officer should they need to get their registration information revised.

As documented in the feasibility report presented to this committee in 1996 when the law was being passed to allow for the register to be implemented, the objective of the register program is to have 92% of all electors on the preliminary list and 77% at the correct address. That's the objective and what we strive for. That's what we said we would achieve. Combined with an enhanced revision process, the aim is to produce lists of electors by polling day with 95% of electors on the list at the correct address. This is comparable to what was achieved at the best of times in the past through door-to-door enumeration.

We estimate that nationally we currently have 95% of all electors on the list and a minimum of 81% at the correct address. This exceeds both of the quality targets set in 1996. The register is updated quarterly using administrative computerized databases provided by federal, provincial, and territorial agencies. Sources outside the Government of Canada must be listed in schedule 2 of the Canada Elections Act. We add such sources regularly.

We use provincial and territorial drivers' licence files and federal revenue files to keep track of elector moves. New citizens are added from Citizenship and Immigration files. Deceased electors are removed from the register using provincial and territorial vital statistics files. We also receive regular updates from the provincial registers of electors currently maintained in British Columbia and Quebec. In addition, we use lists of electors resulting from provincial and territorial elections to add electors and to update addresses for those already on the list. As I indicated in my March 25 appearance, we have updated the register using recent lists of electors from all provinces and territories except Alberta and British Columbia, because elections aren't expected until next year.

Despite regular updates from the sources, there is always a lag in the information. This is reflected in our measures of accuracy.

New electors who have turned 18 are identified from revenue and drivers' files and are added to the register once citizenship is confirmed. The law says you can only add a Canadian to the list. The consent box on the income tax form was modified in 2000—I told that to the committee before—to include an affirmation of citizenship, to permit us to add new electors from this data source. However, our statistical analysis on the data received indicated that non-citizens were ticking the “yes” box at the rate of 7% for youth and up to 50% for non-youth, because there was only one box for the two matters.

Á (1110)

After consultation with the advisory committee of political parties, I decided that the citizenship of these potential electors would need to be confirmed, as I've said, prior to adding their names to the register.

We have used a variety of methods to confirm citizenship, including matching to provincial lists of electors and a national mailing to some 2.2 million people. We have added more than 1.5 million electors to the register as a result, including more than 700,000 youth.

We have been working as well with the Canada Revenue Agency to modify the income tax form for next year, the very next year, to include a separate tick box to confirm citizenship as opposed to the one where they say they want to share the information.

To allow us to add these new electors directly--obviously, especially youth--the privacy commissioner, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, has agreed to this change. That was required, and I want to confirm that with you.

The register has become central to an ongoing partnership with a number of provincial electoral agencies. Savings already realized at the provincial and municipal levels are estimated at some $30 million. The register saves taxpayers at the federal level some $30 million net at each federal election, each general election.

At this point I would like to elaborate further on the matter of addresses, a foundation of the register. As I indicated previously, we maintain a residential address and a mailing address for each elector. The residential address is where the elector lives and the mailing address is where the person gets his or her mail.

We use residential addresses to locate electors and link them to the appropriate electoral district or polling division within the electoral district. That's the key to where we identify polling divisions, by area.

To facilitate this process, more than 87% of electors are geo-referenced through their residential address. That's already on the computerized database--you tell us the address and we know exactly where it is on the map--or linked to a point on our digital map database via their residential address.

We have made significant improvements to elector addresses primarily by having returning officers--returning officers who know the field--revise them using a software application developed to run on the home computers we provide each of them for assignments that are conducted between elections, and in many, many cases, before this general election, by the slew of ROs who were appointed.

We also maintain separate mailing addresses for each elector so they can be contacted by mail. So there are two purposes: to find them there for electoral purposes, and then for mailing purposes, we have a mailing address. Mailing addresses are frequently different from residential addresses, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, and they must conform to Canada Post standards to ensure the mail is delivered correctly.

We have made extensive improvements to mailing addresses since the 2000 general election, including adding Canada-Post-recognized place names that are regulated by the municipalities but are not necessarily the same as official municipality names. I don't control that; I look for it and I make sure we're okay.

As mandated by the act, by October 15 of each year, a list of electors produced from the register is provided to each member of Parliament for the riding they represent, and upon request, to each registered party for each riding in which they ran a candidate in the last election. These lists contain the name of each registered elector, along with the residential and mailing addresses for each one. This is what you received on October 15. You had that information.

Á (1115)

The documentation package that accompanies these lists—because I don't just send the lists out like that—were therefore provided to all MPs on October 15 and included: one, guidelines on disclosure and use of the lists; two, an updates document describing key register activities for the year and current data quality estimates; and three, a user guide providing technical information on the data structure and how to make effective use of the data. A “what's new” page, highlighting changes from the previous year, is also provided. You all get this.

Changes for 2003 included a switch from diskettes to CD-ROMS—even greater facility—simplified data extraction procedures, a new section in the user guide on how to make more effective use of the lists, especially for mailings—this is highlighted—and the introduction of elector status codes to assist MPs and parties in updating their lists in place of a unique elector identifier. I cannot provide a unique elector identifier. The parties have expressed an interest in the latter.

The Advisory Committee of Political Parties is consulted extensively on changes such as these and is briefed regularly on the registered program. I also seek its advice on issues related to voter registration. I meet with it every three months. We discuss this all the time. At every meeting the list is discussed.

Each year I also write a covering letter to MPs and parties with key messages from the Chief Electoral Officer. I'd like to quote from the letter I sent on October 15, 2003, the same letter that transmitted the data to you. I quote:

As part of our ongoing efforts to involve all stakeholders in the voter registration process, I wish once again to encourage you to report to me any question or any problem you may have with the quality of the data on these lists, so that corrective action can be taken as soon as possible. Your feedback--

Some of you did take us up on that.

--has helped us to focus on issues requiring attention and to improve the quality of the lists of electors. I would also reiterate my interest in accessing all returned mail that you may receive, should your office conduct mailings, using the October 2003 annual list of electors.

While my office is responsible for maintaining the register, I wish to emphasize that it is a shared resource and all stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring that it is as accurate and up to date as possible. The register can only achieve its full potential when this is a reality. Since October 2003 we have reconfigured the register to reflect the new 308 ridings. Yes, we have done that. It has been there since April 1, at least, if not before. We've had it. We have it right now, 308 ridings. And we have continued our updates using administrative and electoral data sources. As we wait for the call for the election, we continue our updates. We've also used Canada Post national change of address data for the first time to record elector moves. As a result of these initiatives, we have added more than 1 million electors and recorded some 2 million elector moves since October 2003.

The lists that were being used by some of you to mail out recently...we've had 3 million changes to it.

We continue to update the register on an ongoing basis. We are currently processing over 80,000 changes from recently received files from Alberta drivers and Nova Scotia drivers and the provincial register in Quebec. We're processing that now. If the election is called one week or two weeks from now, these changes will be in the list. These updates will be reflected in the preliminary list of electors, depending on the call, or they'll be downloaded electronically to the returning offices as revisions, again depending on the call.

I would now like to address the specific issues raised recently by the honourable member for Acadie--Bathurst.

I am informed that on April 1, 2004, Mr. Godin wrote to 3,640 households in the Saumarez and Tracadie--Sheila districts of Acadie--Bathurst and some 1,500 of the envelopes were returned by Canada Post as undeliverable. He has them with him. This is the reason I'm here before you today, at least as I understand it. My staff had an opportunity to verify a random sample of these envelopes, because of the timeframes, with his staff. Brian Cromie from my staff here is the one who did it.

Á (1120)

At his office on Tuesday afternoon, we acted immediately to send people when the story hit the media, which is when we found out about it.

I would now like to apprise the committee of what we've learned from Mr. Godin's returned mail.

First, it is important to state that Mr. Godin's list did not strictly comprise the electors and addresses that we provided to him and the New Democratic Party on October 15, 2003. Some of the returned mail we reviewed was sent to electors at addresses from which we had already moved people in our database. The list was an amalgamation of the October 2003 data from us and other data.

Second, the vast majority of Mr. Godin's undelivered mail was correct in every respect, with the exception of the mailing place name that appeared on the envelope. As I noted earlier, Elections Canada maintains both a residential and a mailing address for each elector. The residential address is associated with the municipality in which the elector resides, and it allows us to place him or her in the correct electoral district and polling division, as I have said. The mailing address uses the Canada Post place where an elector's mail is delivered and where it is needed to send a voter information card during the election. I don't have a problem with Canada Post and my mailings.

Because of mailing difficulties reported by some members in previous years, we made special efforts last October to advise members and parties about correct procedures for preparing the mailing lists. Each recipient of registered data was given a users guide, a copy of which has been provided to you today and which you have in your hands. On page 11 of that document, under “Tips on conducting mailings using lists of electors,” we state:

Use mailing address data fields for mailing purposes. The data in these fields are consistent with Canada Post standards and are therefore more easily deliverable by Canada Post.

In addition, we state:

It is recommended that the physical or civic address fields appearing before the mailing address fields in the record structures not be used for mailing purposes.

However, the labels on Mr. Godin's envelopes were created by using the residential address fields; consequently, the municipality rather than the local, recognized Canada Post place name was used. In other cases, critical information, such as the post office box numbers, were left off the label for more rural electors, because the correct fields were obviously not used.

Through discussions with technical representatives of the New Democratic Party, we have ascertained that in certain cases the NDP vote system used to prepare Mr. Godin's mailing list does not load the mailing place information that we have provided. In situations where the only difference between the residential and the mailing address is the place, the mailing place name is dropped. That's how they processed the data. The result is that the address on the honourable member's letters could frequently not be found and thus the mail was returned as undeliverable. We will, of course, pursue this with the New Democratic Party to ensure that their future mailings use the correct address information.

Our mailing addresses are standardized using Canada Post certified software, which is embedded in the register's computer programs, and it is updated monthly from data we get from Canada Post. A recent measurement of a sample of 19 electoral districts using Canada Post software shows our mailing addresses to be 95% valid. However, many addresses that fail this validation process do so because of minor punctuation and spelling differences, so are fully deliverable. In fact, last fall and winter—and I've mentioned this—my office sent letters to almost 2.4 million registered and potential electors across the country. Since then, less than 15,000 of them have been returned as undeliverable, or just under 0.6%.

Á (1125)

This was a sample of 2.4 million, so it is reasonable to expect similar results with the delivery of voter information cards during the next election, with some fluctuation by riding. If you're rural or semi-rural, it will go up, obviously.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Before I explain what we plan to do with returned cards—the subject concerning the committee—as well as with addresses, which I think I have dealt with sufficiently, I would like to say a few words about the improvements we have made to voter information cards and to the voter list update system.

I know how important this committee considers the card delivery process and its accuracy. Between the 10th and 12th day after an election is called, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week, people on preliminary lists each receive a voter information card. The card bears the person's name, as well as the phrase “to the voter”, not “to the occupant”, as in the 2000 election.

Canada Post will deliver cards to the indicated address, and will not have them forwarded to voters who have moved. That is the agreement we have with Canada Post. The card will remain at the residence, even if the occupant has moved. We return the cards when people have moved. That is why your figures are so high. About 12% of registered voters will have moved—yes, that's right; 12% of registered voters will receive someone else's card because they will be the new occupants at the address indicated. That's normal, because this is a registry.

The card contains very simple instructions. We ask the voters at the address indicated on the card to call the Returning Officer's office if the card contains an error, or if they have just moved in. For the people who move within the riding, any changes can be made by telephone. Those who move to another riding have to complete a form and provide proof of identity.

In my 2001 report, I recommended that the legislation be amended so that the identification requirement be the same for everyone, and be identical to the requirements applied to voters who move within their ridings. That recommendation was not implemented, and so people who move from one riding to another will be asked to provide proof of identity.

Revising agents, who are appointed on the basis of your recommendations and who receive calls in the returning officers' offices, will have computers and be able to access the records of all voters registered on the preliminary list across Canada. In each returning officer's office, each revising agent will have access to the full list for all of Canada.

Revising officers will directly enter changes requested by voters into the Elections Canada revision system, and submit the changes electronically for approval by the Returning Officer. Such approval is required under the Act. Voters who move from one riding to another will automatically have their names removed from the riding they have left. In the same operation, the revising agent can inform the voter of the address of the polling office, and ensure that a new card is sent with appropriate information, including the right polling station, the right name, and so on. The voter will then be able to take that card with him.

Those changes, like any changes to the list, will be clearly identified on the revised lists you will receive from your returning officer in the second-last week before election day.

To encourage people who have not received their voter information card—either the address was wrong and the card was returned, or there was someone else at that address, the 0.6% I had mentioned—to register, reminder cards—these are something new—will be distributed, not mailed, to all Canadian homes between the 19th and 17th day preceding the election, one week after the voter information cards are sent out. One week after receiving those cards, voters will receive a reminder, which bears neither name nor address. It will just be a reminder. We have tested the procedure in by-elections, and are introducing it in this national election.

Á (1135)

Voter information cards that are not deliverable because the address cannot be found will be returned immediately by Canada Post to the offices of returning officers, so that the reason for their return can be determined. Canada Post will not simply keep them; they will be immediately returned. This is according to a specific agreement we have with Canada Post.

The returning officer's staff has been instructed to clearly delineate affected areas. Our experience has shown that with good analytical methods and with good knowledge of local resources, in most cases we can correct wrong addresses and re-mail the cards.

This method, which was developed and tested during recent by-elections in Quebec and Ontario—I submitted a report on those by-elections to Parliament—has proved extremely efficient. It has been taught to all returning officers during their training, and to their staff as well, particularly revising agents and their supervisors. Training was provided through manuals and videos, and I have brought samples on DVD. You have all received the DVD. If you would like to know what we tell those people and see how the cards are handled, you will find the information on the DVD. Each of them receives the DVD.

I would now like to talk about targeted revision. This will take three or four minutes, Mr. Chairman. Targeted revision, which is equivalent to the door-to-door approach, is used for problem areas identified by Elections Canada, returning officers, candidates—yes, candidates—and local riding associations. This includes student residences, high-density dwellings, new neighbourhoods, seniors' residences, and areas less likely to appear on the preliminary list, such as disadvantaged areas. We asked our returning officers to have those areas visited by revising agents working in pairs.

At the beginning of the election, each returning officer must submit to the candidate a statement describing the quality of the voters list in his riding, and an estimate of the amount of revision that will be required. Moreover, he must distribute to all candidates a list of addresses requiring targeted revision, which I described a few moment ago. In our data bank at present, we have some 1.7 million addresses to visit for targeted revision. In other words, 13% of addresses might require a visit. In fact, I should say two visits, because revising officers need to return.

That said, whenever candidates believe that some area has been omitted, all they have to do is notify the returning officer. Returning officers have instructions never to refuse any reasonable request. That is an instruction, a directive. I did not ask them to do me a favour, I have given them an order.

In recent weeks, local riding associations—yours—have had a chance to meet with Returning Officers to learn about these plans. Candidates will have to ensure that people who work with them are ready to deal with the additional calls they receive from people who wish to register on the voters list. As I said, 12, 13, 14 or 15% of people—depending on the riding—will require some sort of revision to their information. Your offices will have to be set up to receive those calls. Some people will call us directly, but others will call you. You will be receiving more calls than you did when everything was door-to-door, there is no doubt about that. After all, revision is the name of the game.

We expect about 12 per cent of voters to have different addresses after the targeted revision, regular revision, registration during advanced voting, and registration on election day.

In conclusion, I just want to point out that one essential tool in maximizing the exercise of the public's right to vote in the next election is advertising. Our advertising campaign will be in four stages. Three days after the next general election is called, the advertising campaign will begin with an announcement in all print media. The announcement will provide the election date, eligibility criteria for voting, and recent changes to riding boundaries.

The second phase of the advertising campaign will begin in the middle of the third week of the election campaign. Television and radio spots, as well as announcements in the newspapers, will invite anyone who has not received a voter information card, or whose voter information card contains an error, to contact Elections Canada as quickly as possible. The TV and print ads will show an image of the card. So can you see what I'm trying to say: we will not only be sending voters both a card and a reminder, we will also have a whole advertising campaign asking them to contact us if they have not received anything. We have lots of fail-safe mechanisms.

The third phase of the advertising campaign will begin in the middle of the fourth week of the election campaign and end on the Monday on which advance voting is scheduled. It will focus on advance voting and other ways of voting by mail, and tell voters who have not received a voter information card how to register to vote.

The fourth phase of advertising will begin in the middle of the last week of the election campaign, and end on election day. The print announcement will invite people to check their voter information cards and the Elections Canada website to see where and when they should vote. On our website, the information is provided immediately. Our telephones will be set up for voice recognition. When the caller gives his postal code, the system will tell him where to vote.

The TV spots will target people who have not received voter information cards... In spite of everything, there will still be Canadians who see nothing and hear nothing. So to them we'll say: If you have seen and heard nothing except this message, bring proof of identity and go vote. Call us, and you will know where to vote. Visit our website, and you will know where to vote.

Á (1140)

[English]

In closing, I would like to mention that if other members have experienced difficulties, other than the ones we've treated before, with the lists we provided last October, we would like to have known. That's the gist of what I was saying earlier. They may be of the same ilk, in other words, easily explainable, or they may be different and require that something be done to our list. From what we found today, there's nothing to be done to our list, but I would appreciate it if this could be done. If there are any specific circumstances raised today, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to ask that we be provided with an opportunity to analyse them outside, just as I would have liked to have an opportunity to analyse this previous one.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

I think you do realize that there was pressure on our side as well. We don't know when the election is going to be called, so this was an important matter for us.

Colleagues, I propose, because this was a matter raised by Yvon Godin, that we will start with Yvon. We'll then go to Chuck, then to Michel, so we'll have done the opposition parties. We'll then go to two Liberals, and then we'll start our normal rotation, if that's okay with you.

Mr. Kingsley, I know you're used to this. We have five or six minutes each. It's the member's time, and answers are included in that time, so I may well cut you off.

Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley spoke for 45 minutes. In five minutes, it will be difficult to touch on everything he said. So I will go directly to what I have to say.

First of all, I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation. In any case, you have always accepted our invitations. I know that you are a bit upset with what we have seen in the media, but we are, after all, in a democratic country. Here we live in a kind of ivory tower, and as soon as we come out, the media are waiting for us. I wanted to say that to reassure you about the media reports you found rather disturbing. Now let's move on, because I have already spent one minute on that.

I have a couple of comments on the Elections Canada guide, to move away from the NDP accusations. You were saying that we should not have used part of the address—the regional part—you use to identify the address where someone lives. The reason I'm asking this is that there really is a problem.

Let's take page 11 of the English version of the Guide. After you show which list is to be used—place, or mail place, you state:

“It is recommended that the physical or civic address fields appearing before the mailing address fields in the record structures not be used for mailing purposes.”

Why not just state clearly that it should not be done? Why not make the message clear? It is recommended that... not be used, means that those fields can be used. Generally, Mr. Kingsley, you express yourself very clearly.

Secondly, when we look at the Elections Canada sheet, we see that the French version mentions “villes”. But you talk about regions. Saumarez is not a “ville”, it is a region, the Parish of Saumarez and Val-Comeau. The mailing address might state “Canton des Basques”, but the sheet says “villes”. As a result, there could be errors in the addresses. The point I raised first is exactly what ended up happening.

Your argument is this “if things are sent to“mail place”, we have the right address, but that still leaves the potential for error. Perhaps we can both share the blame here, because what is written here is “Saumarez”, which is not a “ville”, but a parish. The Parish of Saumarez also includes Pointe-des-Robichaud, and so on. I think that is where the problem lies.

I would like to hear your response.

Á (1145)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I will let Mr. Godin take all the blame. I appreciate his offer to take half of it, but I think I'll pass.

With respect to what is in the guide, I even quoted the preceding wording, which clearly indicates which fields should be used for an optimal mailing address. We clearly state what fields are needed in an optimal mailing address, and then we recommend that people do not do otherwise. I cannot set out orders in this guide.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's 50/50. Why recommend that something not be done? Just say that it should not be done.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, I would say 99/1.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, I will accept that. At least you are taking some of the—

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, you have two minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's come back to the list. During the discussions I have had with you, you said that Canada Post deliver the cards. But Canada Post tells us that, in the case of cards with errors like “Saumarez”, there is a problem. With bulk mailings, postal clerks think that all letters have wrong addresses, and according to what they are told by Canada Post, they return the whole batch.

According to the discussion I had with you on Tuesday, Canada Post was to deal with everything. I mentioned the “Saumarez” issue, where Saumarez is a parish with mailing addresses. Allardville—from where I was sent to Miramichi—is the regional parish for Elections Canada. But there, Saint-Sauveur is the mailing address. So even if you put Allardville into the address, in accordance with the appropriate place or region, Canada Post sends the mail to Saint-Sauveur.

So why do we do this on one side but not the other? You'll say that Canada Post should be answering these questions, but everything is based on the lists you are giving us. The region is Allardville, but Saint-Sauveur is part of the Allardville parish.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Chair: There is time for a short response, Jean-Pierre.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, as I said twice during my remarks, we have agreements with Canada Post. My mail is delivered and that is all I worry about. As for yours, what I can recommend, is that the people dealing with 10% and mailings meet Canada Post representatives to ensure that addresses, even after you handle them beyond what I send you—still comply with Canada Post standards. That is what I would recommend. But I cannot say more about what Canada Post will do.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, you're back on the list.

Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for coming on short notice, although I did notice on your schedule for the election that for the three days prior to the election you have nothing written. I'm sure there will be slack days for you--well, perhaps I exaggerate.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Perhaps we can all get together here.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Exactly.

I haven't got a recent mailout with any concerns, but I do have some questions about the actual mailing addresses. You mentioned that October 15 was the last scheduled update and upgrade of the mailing list, but since April 1 you've had a 308-riding availability that is ready if the election is called. Is there anything prohibiting you from giving those lists to the registered parties now? I mention that because although there may be errors, we find everything now is based on these lists. We're trusting you and your outfit to give us a fairly accurate list. We've dovetailed phone numbers to it. It's all done on that list, everything. If updates since October 15, which would be considerable, were available now--we don't know when the election is going to be, but if we could get them tomorrow, for example--we could put them in our computers and start upgrading our membership. We even use it for our own members' addresses.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right now I'm considering how we could be providing the lists of electors to parties, but even if I'm able to work something out for the 308, it can only occur once the writs have been issued.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Why?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Because of the way the law is structured. When this law was structured, it was very clear when the mailouts were going to occur. It's not a permissive type of statute in that respect; it's quite clear when something can occur. I will be trying to see if I can do something once the writs are issued for parties. They are not even supposed to get them.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's just the candidates right now.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Only the candidates are supposed to get them, and only once the writs have been issued. This is what the law says. My hands are tied.

The Chair: The point is that those ridings don't exist until the writs.... Is that right?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is part of the rationale for it, as well as the fact that the statute is the way it is. We would be facing the same problem if we had 301--

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): On a point of clarification, it gives a horrendous advantage to incumbents. It's clear as the nose on your face that you can't have these lists because your opponents--

The Chair: I'm sorry I interrupted.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Our party officials, of course, would love to have an updated list. We don't know if the election is going to be held now or in September or October, but it could be that the lists we're working with right now will be a year old by election time. Even with the 12% moving rate and so on, in some ridings more, they start to get out of date pretty soon. I just want to be clear. You say your hands are tied by the legislation. You cannot give the registered parties an updated list that you have right now sitting on your desk, apparently.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No.

This will have to be revisited as soon as the election is over. In my recommendations I will broach this. I agree with you. I would very much like, not necessarily to favour one or the other, parties and so on to have more, with tight controls on how they're used, so that we get out of this issue of whether the list is good or not. We know it's good, and this would allow it to be a living thing everybody agrees with, so we can get away from this speculation.

Á (1155)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The problem is, even if it's just the moving part of it, even if there's a 12% error, it's a shame. Because everything is based on your list, perhaps we should have quarterly updates. I don't remember that part of the legislation. I take your word for it, but it should be reviewed, I think. Why wait till you have a 12% error, even if it's just 12%, before updating a list everyone is using? So I make that point.

Second, folks at our party headquarters are wondering what the support will be especially for rapidly growing ridings. There are thousands of people moving into some of these western ridings every year, and because there may be a couple of thousand people in a whole new neighbourhood, the returning officers at the start of the election will begin to revise, as per your schedule. Eventually, we'll get a revised list, but someone will come into the office and say, here's my new address; V2P 7E6 is my new postal code. Will there be someone at your end, through a 1-800 number somewhere, besides just the returning officer, for the party headquarters to get hold of and say, here's the new mailing address; could you tell us what riding they're in? In a big city it's hard to tell. Is there going to be some kind of helpline during the election?

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Dumont (Director of Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): If you allow me, I will answer in French.

Assistance will be provided primarily in local cases, in the riding, by the returning officer. If there are major issues within a given riding or group of ridings, political parties will have a 1-800 number allocated to the candidates. The number will bring calls to us, so that we can deal with the cases that the returning officer is unable to address.

Regarding updates to our Web site—if, for example, someone is looking for his address or his riding on the basis of his postal code, the information on the register will be the most up-to-date at that time. Of course, such changes cannot be incorporated in real time, but we do want to be notified of them. I think that the best approach is to begin with the returning officer at the local level, to ensure that local geography is up-to-date, as well as addresses.

[English]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, could I just add something?

The Chair: Only if Chuck wishes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Sure, just to get that clarified.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'll send out literature if it's required in those areas to make things clear as well.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I'm just thinking again of the party versus the local. I think the priority has to be local, and I understand the returning officer angle, but it would be good if there were some way of getting that also to party headquarters. I have less sympathy for the party headquarters perhaps--once the election is on, I won't talk to them a lot--but it is a concern of theirs that they won't be made aware of those changes until the election is over.

The Chair: Okay,

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I would like to thank Mr. Kingsley and his team. I'm sure that Mr. Kingsley is not the main witness, since a few moments ago you almost made a mistake. I think we have five main witnesses before us, not only Mr. Kingsley.

The Chair: That was a mistake.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Kingsley, I clearly understood—since you did say it three times—that there will be announcements on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers explaining recent changes to the boundary map.

My first question was exactly the same as the question my conservative party colleague asked about the availability of new lists. I put the question to Ms. Davidson. In determining when to give us the lists, you are using your interpretation of Section 94; you base it when the issue of the writs.

Â (1200)

Ms. Diane Davidson (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): That is correct. The list will be made available to candidates as of the first week of the election campaign. The list is provided to party candidates by the returning officer, not Elections Canada.

Mr. Michel Guimond: So there are considered candidates as soon as they submit their nomination papers?

Ms. Diane Davidson: That is correct.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I see.

I'll move on to something else. Please turn to Subsection 41(1) of the Act, which governs how results are transposed. I will read you the beginning:

41.(1) When a new electoral district is established, the Chief Electoral Officer shall transpose the results from the previous general election to the polling divisions that are in the new electoral district in order to determine which registered parties have the right to provide—

—the list of electoral officers.

The end of the paragraph is my own wording. Is my interpretation correct when I say that the part, “When a new electoral district is established,” is not solely targeting districts 302 to 308, is not solely targeting the seven new ridings created in the 38th legislature? When it says “When a new electoral district is established,” this means all ridings which had their boundaries changed with the last review. Am I right in this? Good.

When are you going to provide the transposed results?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We already did that at the end of December, and the transposed results are on our Web site. We also sent a notice to everyone, and each member of Parliament even received his or her own copy.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I see. I must have had the wrong information.

Mr. Kingsley, if an election were called... I understand that you will be given an election date, but according to the current rumour, elections might be held on 5 July. In Quebec, the circumstances are different from those in the rest of Canada. Canada Day, 1 July, is not celebrated a great deal in Quebec. But nonetheless it is national moving day, as it were—and 500,000 to 600,000 Quebeckers move house on that day. You can see how difficult things would be if there was an election on July 5th, with 500,000 to 600,000 people living at a new address. For example, let say that I lived on 8th Avenue in the riding of Rosemont-Petite-Patrie, and I move to Plateau Mont-Royal, in the riding of Laurier. You can see how difficult things would be.

Does the system have the capacity to deal with that situation comfortably?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With the revision process we have established, the answer is yes. What we would do is put more effort into revision in the targeted ridings, so if necessary in the 75 Quebec ridings. Perhaps the density of people moving isn't the same throughout Quebec. We would certainly focus particularly on the cities. That is one thing we could do.

Obviously, we would once again ask for cooperation from candidates to help us identify areas where they believe there would be more recent changes, and we would do our door-to-door revisions there. Our computer systems are set up so that we can easily enter all the figures needed.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Kingsley, the last time you appeared before this committee, I was held up doing something else. My colleague from Sherbrooke put forward a suggestion you considered a good one, and I would like to come back to it. Allow me to explain.

You know that, in the legislation, every party is entitled to have two representatives at the polling table, and that can lead to... Let me just digress for a moment. Even if those representatives do not come under you at present, we hope one day they will. At present, you are responsible for them administratively but you do not appoint them. Whatever the case, I hope you will certainly give instructions to the effect that the parties are entitled to appoint them. If you take a table with a deputy returning officer, the clerk and representatives, you can end-up with 10 or 12 people at one table. There have been—

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: It has to be a brief answer, Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: In any case, there will be a second round, weren't there?

[English]

The Chair: You can come back very soon.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I am coming to the end of my question. Have you made sure that the returning officers will respect the right of parties to have representatives at their table? In several ridings, this situation gave rise to problems because the returning officer said that the representatives would not be allowed to be at the table, since there were officials. Anyone else would have to find their own place to stay. They were not provided with a table, only a chair, and they were told to take their clipboards and to strike out the names on the lists. However, the parties have the right to representatives and you should...

[English]

The Chair: It has to be a brief reply. Mr. Kingsley you can come back to it on another round as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We have established procedures with the returning officers, we have shared these procedures with them in order to solve the problem based on the number and availability of tables. We even ordered them to get additional tables if there were not enough, on the condition of course that tables were available elsewhere.

[English]

The Chair: Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I will skip my turn because somebody else already asked the question I was intending to ask of Mr. Kingsley. I will give my time to Mr. Marcel Proulx.

[English]

The Chair: Marcel Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. St-Jacques. Good morning Mr. Kingsley. I would like to welcome you and your team to the committee this morning.

I would like to come back to the point raised by my colleague, Mr. Guimond, with regard to party representatives. I'm not sure that the returning officers want to necessarily accommodate two representatives, although, under the act, two representatives are allowed. At one point during an election campaign when I was in the running there were nine candidates. This would have meant 18 representatives. We would have needed a larger building for the vote.

However, a point was raised which I find interesting. It seems that returning officers perhaps—this is not the case in my riding, of course—are not very enthusiastic about accommodating representatives. When that's the case, they send them to the back, to a place between the table and wall, give them a small folding chair and tell them to worry about their own business.

I believe that the representatives have the right to a minimum degree of comfort. When I talk about comfort I'm not talking luxury, but basic comfort so that the representatives can do their work sitting down, because some of them sit at the voting tables. You know the system better than anyone else: it's important that the representatives be present.

I would like you to take 30 seconds out of your precious time today to tell us what instructions you gave, or will give, to your returning officers so our representatives are shown respect.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I could send you the directives we give returning officers, through the chair.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, that's a good idea. Perfect.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I simply would like to make a clarification. People say that the candidate has the right to two representatives, but that's to allow one of them to be on site when the other leaves. Of course, the law says that two representatives are allowed. I know, but if a candidate wants to be reasonable, he will send in one at a time. The reason why it says two is because if one entered and the other left, someone would immediately complain that their opponent has two representatives. The law says two, but we aim for one. After all, who can find two representatives. I don't know why there should be two representatives on site for 12 hours; it's beyond me. But we will send you the directives we give to the returning officers.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Kingsley, I have a brief question.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You'll send a copy?

Â (1210)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Kingsley, your officials follow the news very closely. Yesterday, a specific article appeared in several newspapers which revealed that an advertising campaign to sell beer would be held during the election campaign. The advertising campaign was called “Vote Blue”.

Mr. Michel Guimond: “The Blue Party”.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Michel.

Do you find this type of campaign bothersome or annoying? Do you intend to do something, apart from drinking blue beer? How do you perceive this advertising campaign, Mr. Kingsley?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it's difficult to me to say because I don't drink alcohol.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But you read.

Mr. Michel Guimond: He lives a virtuous life.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: You or your officials surely read—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I generally don't have anything to say about that. I haven't had the opportunity to look into the matter because this is the first I hear of it. In fact, the article was detailed enough to reveal that the CEO had not been consulted. That's why I did not think there was anything to it, but we'll read it again to see if there is something we should do. But it's a matter of freedom of expression, period. For now, I don't think there's anything illegal about it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Carolyn Parrish, and then Chuck Strahl.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I find it passing strange that we have a sudden interest in these lists. We've had these lists every October for the last four years, and using them to do a general mailing is about $40,000 of taxpayers' money. So I always find it interesting that the year of an election, everybody is always very interested in these lists.

You mentioned in your response that you would like to control how they're used and you'd like to make them more available. I think when we sat reviewing this legislation a couple of years ago, after the last election, there was a section in there that allowed people to use them for fundraising, soliciting funds, and using them for political purposes, which I strongly objected to and I still do. When we do the review after this election, I'm going to bring that subject up again, because people can target areas that they know are Tory or they know are Liberal, and they can inundate people, using your list, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, to ask them for money. I find that very offensive.

So I would like to know--not today--is what controls you would like to see implemented. I'm asking you specifically before we do that review after the next election, provided I'm still here.

I did use polls and addresses provided by you last May, when we were looking at the riding redistribution. I polled an area called Erindale, to see if they had a concern about being moved in and out. I got no letters back.

The way I got no letters back was that I addressed them on the envelope, “Dear resident”, because if people had moved in, their opinions were still valid to me. So I wasn't targeting individuals; I was targeting a household and asking them their opinion on something that was about to happen. So as long as you put “Dear resident”, you're not going to get anything back, because your stuff is absolutely accurate. I had zero returns, and I'm a fuss-budget--you know that.

So I think there are ways of instructing politicians on how to use these lists so they can use them for the purposes for which they were intended, which is to communicate with the residents and get opinions on political events in their riding, not necessarily partisan.

I'm an incumbent, but if we were able to get the lists, as Mr. Strahl suggests, do you realize you could do 15 mailings the year before an election, at $40,000 a mailing? The advantage to incumbency would be incredible, on all sides, all parties, whoever was elected. So I am really very cautious about these lists being overused, over-provided.

Having said all that, I have a new riding, which is only 50% of my old riding, so I hope these lists, the day the writ is dropped, are available for places that have been recomposed, because I have only 50% access to my riding right now. And as I say, I only use it for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We've sent the maps already. The lists are ready, in accordance with those maps. It's all done.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So 24 hours later we'll get our lists.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's all done.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: From the ROs.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're going back to the regular rotation now. So it's Chuck Strahl, Judi Longfield, Bernard Bigras, Claude Duplain, Yvon Godin, and then the chair.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

I've never used the Canada Post lists for any purpose, and I haven't cost the taxpayers anything--I'm sure Mrs. Parrish will be thrilled--but it is important, I think, even if it's just because they're meshed with other information....

We all want to have accurate information. That's why this quarterly update--I won't use it for mailouts--is interesting for me when I have casework, constituents and everything, just to have the regular updates. Rather than phoning 5,000 people on my other list, on my regular office list, if I have regular updates, I can update my addresses and everything. It can be done automatically. That's why I like regular updates. I've never done a mailout, so I won't use it.

Anyway, I have a couple of other points here.

One is that Elections Canada of course is planning this simultaneous kids vote in the high schools. Depending on when the election is, of course, that may or may not be possible. If it's July 5, I take it that it's impossible.

At what time or what date does the high school vote, the kids vote that you've planned to run concurrently with the federal election, become impractical or impossible to administer?

Â (1215)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Student Vote 2004 is the program to which you're referring. What they intend to do is to advance the polling day to fit before the end of the school year--in the high schools, because we're talking about high schools, not universities, here. That's the way they would do it. That is not ideal, but that is the way they would do it. So there would be the benefit of all the stimulation and all the discussion, and it may still be possible to organize all-candidates meetings in a number of high schools.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know if they want to stimulate students in June; it's not generally a problem.

One of the concerns we had about the student vote was that it would occur before the regular vote and all kinds of oddball things would start to happen. People would start to target schools, try to get a preliminary vote, and then try to use it for propaganda, and so on.

Let's pick an arbitrary date and say it's a June 28 election. If they held a vote on June 15, in order to get the maximum number of kids, and the vote was held, what assurances do you have that the vote is secure until June 28?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The understanding we have right now is for a voting scenario where it occurs on the same week, for example, on the Wednesday before voting day. The results were going to be held and posted on the Elections Canada website, in whatever fashion the law authorizes us to publish them, in terms of time, based on court cases that are proceeding. We're not sure if it's going to be done that way.

If it's several weeks in advance, I don't know, because I don't run the program. I stayed away from running it entirely. We support it, but that's another matter.

For a student vote, whether or not they would be able to withhold the results and wait for transmittal, I think it would still give them more “whack” to their program, because the kids would be tuned in on election night. I haven't discussed it with them, because I haven't carried out the scenario. I don't know what their plans are.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You and I communicated when this idea was floated. One of the concerns was on the security of the vote. The vote would not be communicated and wouldn't become a trendsetting tool.

I'm not overly freaked out about this; it's only that I think there should be some instruction given. I mean, if you're working with them, what are your expectations? Would they hold the vote and then lock it in the principal's office, or what would they do?

If they're going to distribute it, they should be instructed. But if it's a week or two in advance of the general election, for example, I think we should have some consistent expectations, whatever they may be. This is going to be a major undertaking. There could be several million kids voting. For whatever it is we want, we should try to make it consistent.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will carry the message to Mr. Taylor Gunn, who is running the program, and raise it as an issue that was raised here. I'm sure he'll be sympathetic to this. He has been very appreciative of the support he has had here.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It has been pointed out to me that the motion we passed in the House of Commons said the results should be published after the general election. If that's worth anything to you, and to the student vote, I hope they will consider it.

I don't know if there's anything binding going on here, or with whom, but it seems to me you've entered into a contract with Student Vote 2004 and it should be communicated to them. Then they should take whatever action they need to. I'm not telling them what to do, but I would recommend whatever action is necessary to try to go with the spirit of it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. I think this would be in keeping with the need to make sure it really turns the kids on, in terms of watching the results and comparing votes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's why it should all come in at once. I think it would be best for them and for us.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will be broaching this with Mr. Gunn and will come back, if you wish, to tell you the results.

The Chair: By the way, as that was my private member's motion, I would be grateful if you would come back to us on it.

Â (1220)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It would be a pleasure, as always.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Finally, there are some people who are sending out householders, not knowing when the election is going to be held. People will do everything under the sun. You have to be careful that it's not too partisan. It's not your territory, but if it's too partisan, it could be considered an election expense. We're trying to be prudent on this.

My riding is a huge, new geographical area, as is Carolyn Parrish's riding. I'm going to basically send out a map of the new riding, with a bunch of stuff on contact numbers for Elections Canada for when the writ is dropped. Then I'll tell them to have a nice time and that I hope to see them on the election trail. Basically, that's about all I was going to say.

Is there anything in particular you would like us to communicate to voters, in a general way, about Bill C-24 and how it impacts on them? Is there anything specifically you think should be highlighted for voters, in general, from an Elections Canada point of view?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer to the latter question is that I would rather communicate with the electors myself.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Diane, briefly.

Ms. Diane Davidson: With respect to the issue of a householder--what is in the householder and whether or not it's going to be caught as an election expense--it depends. If it's partisan, if it's electoral in nature, then you're caught. I would err on the side of caution; I would really err on the side of caution.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

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

I want to particularly thank our friends from Elections Canada. You certainly have given us a very clear explanation in terms of residential and mailing addresses, and I think that helps all of us.

You indicated that there was an update lag time. How long is that lag time for updating the lists?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The update lag time depends on the province and the source of data. From Revenue Canada we get the major file once a year and we get an interim file once a year--after six months, if you understand.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So for anybody who filed just recently and ticked it off, there's not a hope that's going to get on it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'll get that information in July and August, so on that front that's a lag that's not minor. With respect to others, on average it's three months; we do three-month updates. Then, if you take into account the lag that occurs in those data sources, you're looking at moves within the last six months that are not picked up. That pretty well matches, if you look at the broad statistics, the number of people who move in Canada each year, and your lag could be nine months; it depends.

Some people are quite tardy in advising.... Even when it concerns a motor vehicle, they wait to be arrested and then the police say, you have 24 hours or else you'll have another ticket. That's when they do it.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I want to confirm that the most recent Ontario election data is now added.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Confirmed.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: How often is the Canadian Forces list updated? How is it updated and how current is that list? That's where I've always had problems.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Dumont: The Canadian Forces list we receive contains the statements of residence. We received the statements of residence, but the law stipulates that there must be a 60-day delay before the statement of residency of a member of the armed forces is updated. This means that the list you, as a candidate, receive the day the writs are issued will contain the residency information going back to 60 days before that date. The Canadian Armed Forces list is considered as an integral part of the voters register. This means it is given to the candidates at the same time as the voters list for the riding.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: There used to be a separate mailing list for members of the armed forces.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Dumont: Indeed, it is a separate list, but it is nevertheless included in the same block of lists of addresses which you receive in the form of a diskette.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, but we'll receive that on--

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Dumont: Exactly.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: With respect to spending limits, they're based on the population or the electors on the list. I know that revisions are continuing and you can have your name added right up until election day, but on what day is it cut off for spending limits, and is there any revision after?

Â (1225)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: From the outset, the preliminary list is based on the preliminary which is issued. This means that it comes out during the first week and it provides a general figure. Afterwords, the amount is adjusted, based on the real number of voters after all changes have been made, but the amount cannot be lowered. The Act stipulates that the amount cannot be lowered and that, in fact, it can only go up. So, you begin with the knowledge that the amount represents the most you can spend during the election campaign.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm concerned about areas where there's an extreme population growth that occurs after a special revision. For candidates, that could be very critical; we're all trying to get information out. None of us want to overspend, but you also want to ensure you have the resources to target the additional ones. Would I expect that perhaps mid-campaign I might get an update?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I've just been informed that it's day 11 before polling day that you get that final amount.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: And that is final no matter how many get added to the list?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is based on the revisions up to that date.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: What kind of identification is required at voting stations?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You need something that bears your name, your address, and your signature. Not all pieces of ID have all that, so a person can bring two pieces of ID and we'll cross-check; we'll use the two to do that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So it could be a letter from mum at the address and your driver's--or not your driver's licence, but perhaps your health card or some other piece of identification.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It could be your health card, and I would have preferred a letter from a company, your credit card company, rather than a letter-from-mum type of thing.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I appreciate that, and I know if you get it from a municipal utility, that's the best. But if people are trying to go around the system, I want to know how low down on the list of preferences we are prepared to go to accept a letter, and I want to know what the signature card has to be.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It has to be one of those cards, a health card or a credit card, that has your name and your signature on it.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You indicated that as candidates we should be prepared to facilitate additions to the list. Is there going to be a standard form we can fax in or do? You said we should be prepared for people calling to indicate they're not on the list and want to get on the list. Could you prepare a form to be available in our offices so we could fill it out and have all the requisite information? We could then fax it in as opposed to just sending in little pieces of paper.

The Chair: A very brief reply--very brief.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's an excellent idea but one on which we haven't acted, so let me see what we can do even for this election.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just have one other, and it's important. It's about casting a special ballot before the close of nominations.

The Chair: You can come back on the list.

Bernard Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for being here.

I know that Elections Canada decided to take on a huge challenge, namely to get more young people to vote during the upcoming election. As a result, you will launch a campaign which I think is fairly exceptional. Unless I am mistaken, you even intend to write to young people between the ages of 18-24 inviting them to exercise their right to vote.

Would it be possible for us to work together so that we could also call upon these young people to vote? In order to do so, we would need the list of citizens voting for the first time. Do you think political parties or candidates could—I'm not sure about this—receive the list of young people who will vote for the first time, so that we can reach our common objective, which is to get as many young people to vote as possible?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In order to do that, the law would have to be amended. I cannot give you the birth dates of those people.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I was not asking for their date of birth. I was asking for the names of citizens who can...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In my view, it comes down to the same thing, since your asking for the names of people who are between the ages of 18 and 24.

But I would like to clarify one thing. I will not write to each individual youth. I have written to them. But I will now only write to the 250,000 young people who have not yet registered, because we know who they are. I've already written to the 1,200,000 young people. That's a done deal. Now I only intend to write to the quarter million young people who have not yet registered.

Â (1230)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will share my time with my colleague.

If the vote is called for June 28 or July 5, it is clear that more people will probably want to vote in advance than during previous elections. I will tell you frankly that I've had some very bad experiences in my riding. About 20 people were waiting in the waiting room, since advance voting is a more complex process.

What directives will you issue? Are you going to hire additional personnel to make sure that people can vote more quickly because, it is only natural that during a spring, or perhaps even summer, vote, voters are more likely to vote at an advance poll.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Are you talking about registration on the day of the vote?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm referring to people who show up at the office of the returning officer or who sent someone in their place with two pieces of ID.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: So you're talking about a special vote at the office of the returning officer.

We are structured in such a way that this process could take place quickly.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What does that mean?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It means that if we see that more people want to vote in advance, we will do the following. Each returning officer has a provisional budget, but if there is a lack of resources, all the returning officer has to do is call and funding will be approved immediately, so additional staff can be hired. I will ask returning officers to manage their affairs well and not to sit back and wait with their arms crossed. They were trained to keep one thing in mind, which is to serve the public. If one person is waiting in line, it's the public who is waiting. I want those people to be served.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, deux minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: So if there are delays, a voter can contact the person you have designated to inform that person of any problems.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The returning officer.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine.

I'd like to come back to Subsection 41(1), because when you answered my question, you were in the right church but in the wrong pew. Indeed, at the end of December, we received the transposed results, but Subsection 41(1) refers to the transposed results in polling divisions. We would like to have the results broken down by individual polling division. That's not what we received. If you say once again that we did receive the breakdown, I will get the cassette and we will watch it together.

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar (Senior Director, Register and Geography, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): What I understand we provided--and I may have to go back and look at this in detail--were the poll-by-poll results from the 2000 election transcribed into the new electoral districts and the new representation order, the 308. So we don't provide poll-by-poll correspondence. We take the old poll-by-poll results from the 2000 election and transcribe them into the new riding boundaries.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: The law says:

41.(1) When a new electoral district is established, the chief electoral officer shall transpose the results from the previous general election to the polling divisions that are in the new electoral district...

Was that done?

[English]

The Chair: Whatever we're going to do, it's going to be very short.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: If not, we'll go to the press. We'll follow Mr. Godin's example.

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar: We translated the 2000 election poll-by-poll results into the new riding levels, and that was so we could identify which party could then appoint electoral officers to work in the next election. We did not go old polls to new polls; we went old polls to new ridings.

The Chair: Michel, you can go back on the list.

Claude Duplain, Yvon Godin, and then the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): In the latest chapter with regard to changes to electoral boundaries, strange things have happened, as was the case in Portneuf. I do not know if I am the only one in this situation in Canada, but I will have to go to four ridings to get to mine. It's a bit strange. I'm sorry, I said four ridings, but in fact it's three. I will have to go through three ridings to reach mine. Throughout the entire process we tried to implement, but ultimately failed to do, we were not asked whether, given the fact that we had lost, we wanted to change the name. So the names were not changed. I realize now that several other ridings are in the same situation.

I don't know if you are aware of that, but when you have to go through three ridings to get to another riding from Portneuf, there are people on the other side of Portneuf who are not even aware of the situation. Now, if the law is amended, Portneuf will be covered with signs, except that the law will only come into effect in September.

Do you have any suggestion as to what we can do to prevent confusion amongst voters? My question is very specific. If we were to print signs with the new riding name, will that be illegal?

I'd like to hear your answer to this first question before I ask a second one.

Â (1235)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As far as I am concerned, under the law, you can call your riding what you want. As for confusion in the mind of voters, that would be the end result, because on the ballot, in my election advertising and on every site where a voter may look for the name of their riding, they will find its current name. So, if you put another name on your signs with your current name above it, and if the voters cannot find you, it won't be my fault.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Fine. So if we include the name of the riding, but if we include in parentheses, or in our own advertising, the name the riding will be called as of such date, let us say Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, if that is included on my signs in between brackets, it is not illegal. There's nothing illegal to that, right?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. I'm not the one who will be dragging you to court.

Mr. Claude Duplain: All right.

As for as non-printed material is concerned, why don't you include, between brackets, the new names of ridings, as the case may be? Is that impossible to do?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I do not intend to confuse myself. It's not an easy task to produce 308 maps for the entire country, to produce maps with 308 names, to have my software ready if people want to find their polling division, and to include the names of each riding. It is stated clearly, otherwise, chaos will reign within my organization.

Mr. Claude Duplain: That's a good point. But if we try to avoid confusion in the minds of our voters, you don't have a problem with that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No.

Mr. Claude Duplain: A little earlier, you talked about changes of address. I may not have heard everything you said, because I was thinking of a specific case which had been brought to our attention. When you send out the cards, they will not be returned but they will stay where they are. Let me give you a specific example: I moved and a new tenant moved into my old house. He receives a card, but does not send it back. In other words, as long as I have not indicated that I have moved, my name will appear beside my former address on the voters list. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As long as you have not indicated that you have moved.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I see, so it will stay there.

Once the new elector change of address is recorded, then there can be my name with my address and the new name with the same address on the list of voters.

Mr. Luc Dumont: At that point, the revising agent would normally ask you whether someone else will be living with you when you move to the new address. If you are moving to a new apartment and the other person has left, then the name of the previous voter will be deleted. It is only if you are moving to this address and you say that no one else is living with you.

Mr. Claude Duplain: According to the returning officer, if the person who has moved into my house phones the returning officer, the latter does not have the right to cross out the former address.

Mr. Luc Dumont: No. On the basis of the information you will provide—

Mr. Claude Duplain: No, let's go over it again. I, Claude Duplain, live at address x and Mr. Guimond moves into that house—he'd rather live in a Liberal riding... I'm getting all mixed up myself. So, let's say he moves to my place and I leave. If I change constituencies, that means that my name will not be struck out. If I haven't made my change of address known, then I can go vote on the same day.

Â (1240)

Mr. Luc Dumont: Mr. Guimond, who has moved to this new address, will be asked whether someone lives with him.

Mr. Claude Duplain: His answer will be no.

Mr. Luc Dumont: His answer will be no and we will see that Claude Duplain no longer lives at this particular address. At that point, his name will be struck off. And once you move to the other constituency—

Mr. Claude Duplain: What if the revising agent didn't stop by at his place?

Mr. Luc Dumont: He doesn't have to visit his place. It all depends on whether he decided to do this by phone or make a visit. If the move takes place within the constituency, then it can be done by phone.

Mr. Claude Duplain: So, when he makes his change of address known, you are aware of the address and know that that was where Claude Duplain was living at the time. You are aware of this.

Mr. Luc Dumont: Yes.

Mr. Claude Duplain: So his name is struck off at that point.

Mr. Luc Dumont: Exactly.

Mr. Claude Duplain: That answers my question. To reinforce what Mr. Bigras said, for the next election, whatever the date may happen to be, the 28 or 5, I think that there will still remain a possibility of voting every day at the office of the returning officer and that a lot of people will be doing this. I'd like directives to be sent out. I think it is worth the trouble of establishing directives for the returning officers because it is our feeling that there is going to be a lot of movement every day at the polling stations. That is something I have observed in the field and I go along with what Mr. Bigras said.

[English]

The Chair: Very briefly, Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have another point. The returning officer in my constituency—it's also been said in other constituencies, that is why I'm raising it—told us that there will not be any representatives at the tables. That is a strict directive. That's what was said in Portneuf. Should it prove to be otherwise, it would be necessary to... At our first meeting, the returning officer said that there would not be any representatives according to the directives he received. I am informing you of this.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Once again, the polls are not aware of what is happening at the lower levels.

Mr. Luc Dumont: What we said is that there is a table where the deputy returning officer and the clerk are seated just like Ms. Davidson and myself. A representative cannot be placed between us. Those are the instructions which were given. People will have to sit on the side. This is the plan that we already discussed with the political party advisory committees in 2002, I believe, perhaps even before the 2000 election. We will be informing you about this plan. The representatives have the right to go to the polling station and they may take a seat. Are they able to sit with the deputy returning officer and the polling clerk at the table? No, they will sit at the side and once again, this depends on the particular layout of the polling station. Some of them may be rather cramped but generally speaking, according to the plans that you have access to, you will note that you still have the same rights you had previously.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon Godin, then the chair, and then very brief interjections from the three people I have on the list.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would really have liked Mr. Duplain to mention that he also was worried about the fact that 30% of his mail was returned. It is not only the case for NDP members, there were also liberals who were part of this group. Mr. Duplain also complained that 30% of his mail had been returned. I just wanted to make sure this was put on the record so that it is not overlooked.

Ms. Davidson talked about the list that will be provided to candidates. Mr. Kingsley, you said that it would be handed over as soon as the election is called. Some people talked about 24 hours but I think that the act refers to 48 hours.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Under the act, the list must be provided to the candidates at the latest on day 31, that is during the first week.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Would it be possible to have the list sent to political parties as well?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is the question I attempted to answer previously when I said that I was in the process of determining how we could send a list to the political parties at the same time as it is sent to the candidates, in other words after the writs have been issued, but certainly not before.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What happens if the campaign lasts more than 36 days?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If the campaign lasts more than 36 days, the timetable is identical. The additional days are before day 36. There is no change made to the calendar unless the day of the election falls on a statutory holiday in which case, it would be a Tuesday. That is the only thing that could be moved. As for the rest, whatever may happen may happen. Otherwise, it's the 36-day calendar that is at the very heart of the electoral process.

An hon. member: So there isn't a 42-day operation and a 36-day one.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: People have the opportunity to rent their offices earlier and the expenditures start being charged to the expense account.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are about 110 people in my constituency who do not even have an address for the city post office.

Â (1245)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I very much appreciate that I'm being asked such a detailed question in the committee but I would like to have the opportunity to consider it separately, as we were doing previously.

An hon. member: Tell him the 110 names so that he can really get mixed up.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have to admit that I don't remember these 110 names out of the 22 million.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, but I'd like to find out how it ends up in the system. Excuse me, there's no need to be a smart alec. I know that your concern is with the millions but I'm wondering how it ends up in the system. That is all.

When we talk about cities and postal names, I would suggest that we prefer the term “electoral regions”. This is my suggestion in an attempt to settle the problem of certain people in their dealings with the data bank.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I see. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll consider it with Canada Post to find out whether it can be applied. I'll discuss the matter with them and follow up on it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let me read the information I have here because I have trouble explaining it. It's the data bank people who look after this. This is what they say:

In fact, 6,356 files in the data base for the constituency of Acadie—Bathurst were unable to obtain a federal constituency identification number assigned by the Elections Canada Table for the matching of constituencies and postal codes. We are therefore unable to confirm that these electors are in the constituency.

This could have happened in the case of the new constituencies that were created. Is there any way to have a...?

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar: We have provided to the parties a list of postal codes linked to the new electoral districts. If you have specific examples where either the postal codes are missing or you think there are errors, provide to them to us. We'll explore them and correct them if required.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have one last question. On many occasions now, since last year, I've attempted to find out... With respect to the boundaries for the constituency of Acadie—Bathurst, the text refers to the parish of Allardville, with the exception of the religious parish of Saint-Sauveur. If you look at the map, you will see that the line is about a mile, that is one and a half kilometres, within Saint-Sauveur, and the people from Saint-Sauveur don't know whether they belong to Miramichi or Acadie—Bathurst.

I sent a letter to Mr. Kingsley about this and still haven't had an answer.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Godin, I have no recollection of receiving this letter. If I did receive it, I answered it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but they said we would be getting it later.

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar: I remember an issue related to it. I don't remember the letter specifically, but we can follow up.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'll follow it up but I would be very surprised if there was a letter I didn't answer.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is a section of about one and a half kilometre where people are still coming to see me to ask whether they belong to the Acadie—Bathurst riding or not, because of this text and the map.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'll look into the matter and settle it this afternoon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. It would be appreciated.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This afternoon.

[English]

The Chair: Okay--

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Finally, I'd like to thank Mr. Kingsley for coming to the committee and giving the other political parties an opportunity to ask questions that seemed to be of real interest.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, I know you had your particular questions, but it's been a very useful session for the whole committee.

On the matter of the youth vote, I want to commend you for your efforts with respect to the 700,000 young people. You know as well as we do that the decline in participation in the last election can almost entirely be explained by the under-30 vote. Your symposiums are excellent, and the Student Vote 2004 program is excellent.

Chuck raised the point about publication of the student results. I am less concerned about them locally than nationally, but it seems to me even though it's not ideal to have the national student voting day some distance away from the federal election date, it will be a big story even the day after the election, nationwide and locally, when those students' votes are published. I commend you for all of that.

I have another thought that relates a little bit to what we're saying here about polls where there is persistently low participation. All candidates do poll analysis. We mainly do it for our own benefit to see whether it is a large poll; whether there was a large Liberal vote or a large Conservative vote, or whatever. We base our election strategy on that. One fact we take into account is whether participation has been traditionally high in a poll.

For example, if there are two polls that are roughly equally valuable to me as a Liberal candidate, one of them traditionally has a low turnout and I have to choose between the two, I would choose the one with the high turnout. If you think about that, it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy. The other candidates may be doing the same thing and saying, “This is a low-turnout poll. I'll leave it, and if I get a day I'll try to go there.”

I wonder if you've thought about that. In polls where there is persistently low turnout, is there anything you can do, such as target them more for changes of address or whatever? Could you respond to that?

Â (1250)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think that's an excellent idea worth pursuing, and we'll be doing that. With all honesty, I'm not sure a lot can be done before the next election, but it's certainly something we can put in the hopper. I'm very pleased to receive the idea.

The Chair: My other question, as chair, has to do with Canada Post. You mentioned it a number of times, and my colleagues have mentioned it a number of times. You're going to consult with it on various points, and I know you'll get back to the committee.

But generally speaking, would you care to comment on the relations between Elections Canada and Canada Post? Are they positive, negative, or whatever?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The word “excellent” comes to mind. We have an excellent relationship. We have a master contract. They do things for us. They do special deals. When we say “elector” on the card, the card doesn't come back; it stays there. This breaks all their rules, but they've agreed to do that for us.

They hurry back with those that cannot be delivered, rather than sitting on them, so we can do something with the returning officer immediately. They handle our shipping magnificently across this land. What else can I say? They are not the issue here.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Can I then ask--because what you've said is very important--do you think mail carriers on the ground understand how important that relationship you've just described is?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think they do, generally speaking. I would say that applies throughout the organization. I think they put out special directives to their mail persons when the election is on, and we've seen the results. If I were to tell you we achieve 100%, you know I would be lying.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Kingsley, on your remarks earlier, I realize you had no time to have them translated and so on. Should we assume you're not going to give us a translated version of your opening presentation? Should we just pick it up from the Hansard?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I couldn't do a better job than Hansard in the time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, just so long as we're clear. We'll wait for that, then, and just do it that way. I realize that all the information is available to us on site and so on, but it's a good synopsis of the list management stuff, and I appreciated that.

Voting locations--and I think I know the answer to this now--in the ridings are designated by the returning officers and communicated to the candidates partway through the campaign, right? Or are they already chosen?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They're already chosen, and they should be under discussion with candidates or their representatives now. If you think one is not at the right place, I want the returning officer to hear that now.

It has been done?

Mr. Luc Dumont: In most cases, yes.

Â (1255)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We also have on a computerized data file all 18,000 polling places across the land. That's what is fed into our computer when people call up to ask where they vote.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are those 18,000 polling stations available to the parties?

Mr. Luc Dumont: We can make the information available, yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's not something the legislation says we can't have. I don't think it's a big deal, but for advertising and consistency, if that list is available--

Mr. Luc Dumont: Keep in mind that it's a working document at this stage. Sometimes the availability changes when the election is called. Normally, you can provide input to the returning officer to supplement with additional sites. During the election I will have to see if it can be made available to you in soft copy.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

I have another question, but it's pretty complicated, so I'll just leave it at that.

How would we get that information about the polling stations? If there are 18,000 of them already picked out, who do we contact if we want to get that information?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will get in touch with parties to find out if they're interested.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, that's good. I don't want them, but maybe the parties do.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'll raise three things. Is there any merit, do you think, to an on-the-ground re-enumeration after three or four election periods? I'm concerned that we're starting a special ballot vote before nominations close. I think it's extremely important that the votes of Student Vote 2004 not come in before election day.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to the use of the special ballot, this is governed by the statute; I have no say on this. It's to be made available and people are to write in the names of the candidates of their choice. Obviously, they cannot mail it in until there's at least one candidate, or else they take their chances. If they write the wrong name, it's down the drain.

I'm going to invite people to look at the success of the door-to-door enumeration we're going to be doing, which we call targeted revision. We're going to visit 1.7 million households. There's a number that will be tied to that, because we control it. I'll report back to you, and you can tell me if you're interested in doing that across the land next time.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Chairman. I'll put all my four questions at once. Then you can answer, it will save some time.

I come back to article 41 for the third time. When you sent out the document at the end of December, the new polling divisions in the new constituencies were not available, they were not yet known. Can you explain to me how we can obtain this information. If necessary, we can arrange for a computer viewing session.

Second, when Mr. Cardin replaced me and raised the question of representatives... I'd like to receive the information sent by Mr. Dumont about the seating of representatives but if in a room like this one, there are 10 or 12 polling divisions and you say that they will be in a corner, I'd like to remind you that representatives are often assigned to a particular polling division. They'll be packed like sardines because the representatives are present at the polling division. In my opinion, it should be at the same table.

To avoid having representatives present, Mr. Cardin suggested that the sheets with the numbers of the people who have come to vote be filled out by the sworn electoral official, namely the deputy returning officer, and that these sheets be available to the party representatives reviewing the lists who would be asked to come and look at them. This would avoid the need for representatives being present. You thought it was a good suggestion and you intended to come back to us on this, Mr. Kingsley.

You know the importance that I attach to the accessibility of polling stations and the confidentiality of the vote, you yourself recognized this after the 2000 election. I'd like to know whether this is included in the guidelines Mr. Dumont sent to the returning officers so that we would avoid situations where polling stations, about the third of the size of this room, have eight polling divisions where it would be possible to literally see who your neighbour is voting for. I was present there the last time and I was able to see who was voting for or against me, as the case may be. You came with me to Saint-Laurent, on the Island of Orleans, where we made the rounds.

Are there any preventive measures to avoid the repetition of such a situation?

One last point. You will be taking a serious look at this issue of the blue party in the advertising for Labatt Blue. First of all, the party will be known as the blue party. In Quebec, this has a connotation that will be favourable to one party and to the detriment of others. I can tell you that we discussed the matter with Mr. Paul Wilson from Labatt's who advised us about his project. He told us that Elections Canada agreed with it, which is completely untrue. You have been implicated. We informed Ms. Holly McManus from your office about this, the day before the article appeared in La Presse. We informed her and she told us that it was just a rumour. The following day, on the 5th, it was in La Presse and Mr. Wilson told us that Elections Canada had been informed. I think that you should take a serious look at it.

· (1300)

The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We do intend to take a look at Article 41 with you and determine what we can do, what is already been done, so that we have a better understanding of each other.`

As far as the plans are concerned, those that we have are for each of the tables in the pooling divisions but not for the entire unit. We won't be putting them all in a group. We don't intend to round them up, telling the 45 representatives to be quiet and to go sit in a corner. We will be sharing our plans with you. As for the question of proximity, we'll be sharing with you what we told the returning officers. All this is available.

As for replacing the representative and giving extra work to the deputy returning officer, this is something that we can take into consideration for the next time, it will not be possible this time. We should remember that the candidate's representatives do not merely note that someone has voted. The're also present for the count and to monitor what takes place at the opening. This is an important role.

I think that I have answered the question about locations for voting, I also talked about proximity.

Lastly, with respect to Labatt Blue, as I told you, at first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything. Labatt Blue never telephoned me personally. If they phoned someone from my organization, I was never informed. It would surprise me, because I think that I have sufficient control over my organization. I will examine the matter to determine whether there may be a breach of the Elections Act but at first glance, this does not seem to be the case. I would not like to see the people from the media get all worked up but my particular preference does not carry must weight in this instance.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I did want to conclude at 1 o'clock for the benefit of our witnesses and for people here, but I have very short interventions from Carolyn Parrish and Claude Duplain.

Carolyn.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm just going to switch gears for a second and talk about the new electoral funding. I want to compliment your staff. I've had a couple of questions come up this week, and I've called them and they've got back to me right away.

You have a really difficult problem here. I don't know whose onus it is, if I get two cheques from two companies at two different addresses, to deal with the fact that the principal owner of those two companies may be the same person. The people out there don't understand it. I've set it out in my letters, but they don't comprehend it at all. They say, if you can't take $2,000 from me, I'll send you two cheques for $1,000 from two different companies.

Whose responsibility is it? I'm turning money down, and it's killing me. I'm trying really hard on my end, but if this same person is giving money in Scarborough and in Calgary, how do we track it, and whose job is it?

Ms. Diane Davidson: The law is clear. The onus is on the person making the contribution. One would have to ensure that the $1,000 limit is respected.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

· (1305)

The Chair: Claude Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have a very short question in relation to what Mr. Guimond said. We are in the process of getting organized and you've just told Mr. Guimond that perhaps we should do something about this for the next election.

This matter was discussed, among others, at Portneuf. What we wanted to do and I think everyone agreed—the returning officer seem to think that it was not such a bad idea—was to provide the clerk who strikes off the name with two sheets, one next to the other, so it would be more practical. It doesn't really take much longer to cross-out the names on both sheets than on one sheet. So when the party representatives come, —they would not be present at the time, —they would be able to look at the list, do their work and give it back to the returning officer. In this way nobody would be disturbed.

Our only problem was that while one of the parties was looking at the list, it could happen that the names of three or four electors might not be crossed out, but that would be our problem. In any case, nobody would be disturbed and we would no longer require representatives.

Is that illegal? Will you be prohibiting the returning officers from doing that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't intend to answer point blank such an important question, I'll take the matter under consideration and I'll be returning to you on this, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

To conclude, Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to clarify a point, Ms. Davidson. In your answer to Ms. Parrish, you opened the door to a question that deserves an answer.

As I understood it, the problem would arise for the person who made the donation. Is that not so? But the problem is not so much who made the donation but the fact that the candidate received the money and do not realize that he received a donation from the same person twice. So who is responsible? That is what disturbs me the most. The person who made the donation has a problem.

[English]

As an example, if it comes to me, I don't detect that he sent it from one area to the other area, and now I have $2,000 when I was just supposed to get $1,000. Is it him only or me too?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Davidson: The answer I gave Ms. Parrish, is that the person who made the contribution runs the risk of being convicted if in excess of the limit. So, it isn't the person who accepts the donation that will be charged but the person who made it. If someone makes a donation and, on being split, it is shown twice, as in the example of Ms. Parrish, then if it is discovered that this person exceeded the limit, the person will be charged and found guilty.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is always the obligation to avoid accepting something that one knows is illegal. That is the obligation but the act does not stipulate that you must verify each donation made to you as it is received. There is no requirement to carry out such a verification but if you are aware of it, that is a different matter, do you see?

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank Jean-Pierre Kingsley and his team, some of whom have appeared before us before. It's something that is very close to the hearts of members of Parliament, and it's been a very useful session for us. So I want to thank Yvon for raising this matter.

It seems to me we don't need to call Canada Post. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Chairman, could you ask Mr. Kingsley to send us the documents? Normally he does so very expeditiously. Would it be possible to receive before next Wednesday, for our caucus meetings, all the documents that they have undertaken to provide, including the directives given to the returning officers and the answer to the Portneuf returning officer that he took under advisement. I'd like us to have these answers so that we can inform our colleagues at the next caucus.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley at several points said he was going to provide us with material. He has an excellent track record for that. I think Michel's point simply is that there seems to be an element of haste around here, so the sooner, the better, if you would.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.