HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 1103

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order, colleagues.

With us today is Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. He has provided to us in the House his report on the 37th general election. We're going to review that document and issues related to it now.

Mr. Kingsley, we'll say hello again. You're a frequent visitor this year. Perhaps you could, for the record, introduce the staff who are with you today. I'm sure you'll want to make an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions.

Do we have a point of order here?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Before you begin, Mr. Kingsley, Monsieur Bergeron has a small item he'd like to take up.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to check with you and make sure that today, we will be addressing the issue of the letter sent to you by four of our colleagues, which I feel is a very important issue. I would not like us to put off this discussion in a cavalier fashion under the pretext that we have distinguished guests today who are to speak to an equally important issue, that is the report on the last federal election.

Under the circumstances, I want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that we will have the time and the opportunity to discuss the issue that was submitted to you last week.

[English]

The Chair: Which question was it that was put before me last week? Are you talking about the matter referred to in the requisition letter?

Some hon. members: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

• 1105

[English]

The Chair: It would not be the intention of the chair to take up that business item today. The Standing Orders provide that a requisition of that nature must be taken up by the committee within ten sitting days. We have already established our order of reference for today. As I had indicated to you informally, though, I'm sure it would be the intention of members to take up that matter at a steering committee meeting planned for this Thursday morning at 11 a.m. That will precede our normal committee meeting, and members will decide themselves, at the steering committee and following the steering committee, just precisely when they want to take that up.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may Mr. Chairman, I would say that I am quite familiar with the provisions of the Standing Orders concerning the request sent to you last week. As regards the agenda that we have before us, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have at item B, “Future Business”. This is what is foreseen for today, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I want to ensure that we will have the opportunity to take a few moments under the heading “Future Business” and discuss this letter that was sent to you last week.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think we're going to have an opportunity to discuss the letter, other than to say it is an item of future business that we must deal with. Procedurally, that would appear to be sufficient for our purposes here today. The reference to future business in the agenda is really just an opportunity for the chair and members, if so advised, to address, just by listing, potential future business items before we go into steering committee on Thursday. So there will be an opportunity to mention the letter again, Monsieur Bergeron.

Can we go to our witnesses? Yes?

Mr. Kingsley, you may lead off. Thank you.

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

I wish to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to present my report on the 37th general election and to respond to the questions of the committee. The report itself was tabled officially in Parliament, through the Speaker, on Monday, March 19.

I am accompanied by Patricia Hassard, assistant chief electoral officer; Janice Vézina, director of election financing; Diane Davidson, director of legal services; Rennie Molnar, director of register and geography; and Luc Dumont, director of operations.

When I appeared before you last, on March 1, I answered questions on the 37th general election that mostly dealt with the national register of electors. Some of your questions, however, required a follow-up. I intend to address them, together with any matter left unanswered today, in a letter after this appearance.

The 37th general election was very much a new beginning. The new Canada Elections Act introduced a number of substantial changes in the way elections are conducted. This was the first general election that was not immediately preceded by a door-to-door enumeration.

Since election day, we have focused our attention on a comprehensive post-election evaluation. In particular, we consulted with returning officers, political parties, and candidates. We know there are many lessons to be learned from our experience in this general election, and we intend to take full advantage of them. I will be submitting my recommendations to Parliament on suggested improvements to the legislation in a separate report, once a full evaluation of the election has been completed. I expect this report will be ready in the fall of this year, at which time I may be called before this committee, if you so wish.

Among the major changes for this election, the discontinuance of generalized, door-to-door enumeration in favour of the national register of electors had the largest impact on voters and all other participants. As a result, the revision of elector information on voters lists has become an even more important activity in the electoral process. All participants learned valuable lessons, including the need to improve the quality of lists in the future, as well as the need to gear up for the important number of revisions required to update the lists, no matter how good they are initially.

We are already working on a number of measures, including an agreement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, with which the Privacy Commissioner's staff has agreed in principle, to allow tax filers to authorize their addition to the register when filing their income tax returns. At present, as I discussed with you last time, we can only update the addresses of voters who are already registered through that process.

• 1110

This practice alone would add an estimated 275,000 voters a year to the register, 225,000 of them being young voters. And by the way, we've already resumed updating our revised software to remove the names of everyone who moves to a new address during the election itself, as opposed to only those within the riding.

In addition to the register, there were several other significant changes for this election. The nomination process for candidates was changed significantly. For the first time, returning officers had to verify that each candidate's nomination papers carried the required number of signatures, and that these signatures were those of electors from the electoral district in which the candidate was running. Returning officers had 48 hours to do so, and we sent them instructions on how to proceed. In all, four candidates' nomination papers were rejected by returning officers because they did not have a sufficient number of valid signatures. I intend to address this matter in my recommendations in the fall.

[Translation]

Election advertising by third parties, individuals or groups other than candidates and political parties, was subject to spending limits and third parties that spent more than $500 in election advertising had to register with my office. The provisions on third parties were challenged in court shortly after the new Canada Elections Act came into force.

While the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has yet to render its decision on the merits of the case, it granted an injunction at the start of the election period which prevented us from enforcing the third party spending limits. All other provisions remain in force, something we have a tendency to forget, notably the requirement to register, and to report on election advertising expenditures as well as on contributions received for election advertising. The injunction was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal but was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently, the limits did apply for the last part of the election period, following the court's decision.

There were also new provisions on the election advertising blackout period. There is now a single blackout period; it is limited to election day until the close of polls; and it applied equally to candidates, political parties and third parties. The same election day blackout applied to the publication of new elections survey results.

For the first time, there were rules requiring the disclosure of information to the public on the methodology of election surveys, in order to allow voters to assess for themselves the accuracy and significance of survey results.

When considering the new Canada Elections Act, commonly referred to as C-2, the standing committee, this one, identified a need for greater flexibility and discretion in enforcing the act. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Canada Elections was given new powers to seek injunctions to stop or prevent the possible commission of an offence under the Canada Elections Act during an election period. The Commissioner's new powers also included enforcing the act by way of compliance agreements.

Finally, the new election financing provisions mean that political parties, candidates and third parties are subject to detailed reporting requirements. In fact, today, four months after election day, is the deadline for candidates and third parties to file their reports. This morning, I received more than 70 justified requests for late filing of reports.

My statutory report contains a full description of how the election unfolded, but there is one specific point which I would like to reiterate, and that concerns the late opening of a number of polling stations on election day. Out of 56,822 polling stations available to voters, some 120 stations in 14 ridings did not open on schedule. Most of these opened within an hour, but in the riding of St. Paul's, Ontario, several remained closed longer. In that riding, a different approach to the recruitment and training of poll workers contributed to the problem. We will take the necessary measures to prevent this unacceptable event from recurring in the future.

• 1115

We are now completing a comprehensive post-election evaluation, and participating in a new edition of the Canadian Election Study, being done by academics, and in a study on increasing the participation rate of young electors in federal elections. Even before all the results come in, though, there are a number of points that will be part of our future plans.

First and foremost, we will invest considerable effort in the register. In light of the growing complexity of their task, we will also develop closer contacts with the returning officers between elections, to ensure that our lists and electoral maps benefit from their local knowledge and experience on an ongoing basis. We have already provided returning officers with computer communication tools to that end. I am prepared to provide you with reports and to appear before this committee periodically and regularly, to brief you on progress achieved in improving our systems. In addition, I would like to reiterate my offer to meet with parliamentary caucuses regularly to discuss all election-related matters of interest to them. In fact, I have already had the opportunity to meet with the New Democratic Party caucus.

We will continue to keep political parties informed and to consult them through the Advisory Committee of Political Parties. In my view, the establishment of this committee has proven to be one of the most beneficial measures in improving the electoral process. I am thankful to this committee for proposing it and I would welcome any other proposal the committee may wish to make.

I trust that my report will be useful to the Standing Committee in its review of the last general election as well as its consideration of future opportunities to enhance our electoral system.

My colleagues and I will gladly answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. There are a lot of issues raised in your report, and a lot of reporting is done in your report. If there are things needing to be fixed, adjusted, or fine-tuned, I guess the process will have to start here, with your report as a base. At this stage, members will try to shape the focus.

Let's begin, and I'll go to the official opposition first. Mr. Strahl, would you like to lead off?

We'll start with seven-minute rounds, if that's okay, colleagues.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

There is one question I have. There is likely to be a census between now and the next election. We don't know when the next election is, but assuming a normal period of time, if all that occurs, will you be adjusting boundaries in time for the next federal election? Will there be time for you to handle all of that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think the results at the very ultimate end of the process pre-empt the possibility of redistribution before the next general election. Frankly, I am working to see how, within the existing law, I can contract certain periods by streamlining procedures—in other words, not waiting for two months for judges to be appointed, but asking that they be appointed to coincide.

It looks as though it would not be possible were the election to be held four years after the fall 2000 election. My recollection is that on December 3, 2004, it's coming into force. That's why I'm thinking redistribution may be...if I can shave off several months.

Now, if it were possible, it might be necessary—certainly, it might be useful—to consider amending the redistribution act in order to shorten the one-year period somewhat. It might be that by shaving it by three months or four months...now, I know this presents difficulties for everybody, including the Chief Electoral Officer, so I'm not stating this lightly, but I'm saying it's a possibility.

That's the answer to your question, sir.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I do think there's intense interest in this, especially in parts of the country that have been growing rapidly. That includes many western ridings, as you know, as well as ridings in Ontario and across the country where specific areas even within provinces are growing quickly. If there are ways we can do that, I think many of us would be keen. I know some ridings are virtually double their former size now. Some of our MPs are saying it's just next to impossible to service 180,000 or 190,000 constituents, and it'll be even worse by the next election.

• 1120

If there are things we can do in our reports back to Parliament, if in your studies of this there is a series of recommendations you think would help us to accomplish that, some of us would be very interested in hearing those. I jotted down the one you just mentioned on the redistribution act, but if there are other things as well, I'd be interested to get your input on that over the next few months.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will undertake to do that before the end of June, sir.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): I have a question. I was looking through your report and saw where you were talking about returning officers on page 21. Of course, everybody had a few issues with things that happened in their local campaigns. I do note here that you've talked about a competencies profile for returning officers and an eight-day training course for new returning officers. Is there any intensive training for those who have been returning officers in the past?

My experience is that someone who's done the job before...in this case we have a new act and many changes that came in. Is there that same training for experienced returning officers, ones who may have done it for many years and feel, because of that, they know exactly what to do? And then the act changes, and there's a bit of a problem with the implementation of some of the new specifics.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In August 2000, we brought into Ottawa all returning officers, all assistant returning officers, and all automation coordinators, almost 900 people, and briefed them over several days on the new sections of the statute. But I don't want you to think that in my view that is now satisfactory, and I allude to this in my comments today. We need to develop much more of a continuing relationship with returning officers in light of the complexity of the task that now awaits them, with all the changes in software—and in some cases hardware—with respect to the handling of elections. As all or most of you know, they all have computers and they all have software that we provide to them. We will have to do more than simply bring them in for a couple of days. This will have to be a kind of continuing relationship.

We're also thinking of organizing them regionally and somehow letting them get together as well. Some of our people would go out on a regular basis so we can maintain the links instead of meeting only during elections, once every three or four years for returning officers. I suspect it will add a little to the bill, but it's going to be an investment insofar as I'm concerned. What I'm trying to say is, I'm not satisfied to just tell you that we trained them for the election. We also realize we need to do a lot more on a continuing basis.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. There were a couple of specific incidences in my own, personal case, even within my own polling station. When I went to vote—of course, I was visiting all the polling stations on election day—I was told by the deputy returning officer I could not speak to one of my scrutineers within the polling station. I had a brief disagreement with that person about that but then left the polling station. By the time I had finished voting, there was a call on my cellphone that someone from the polling station had called Ottawa to complain that I was campaigning in the polling station. I had made a point of leaving, knowing I was within my rights to talk to the scrutineer but not wanting to cause a fuss. I went outside to talk to my scrutineer, and then was accused of campaigning in the polling station. I was very upset about that particular incident.

Also, we had DROs ripping off my scrutineers' name tags. Many of the other parties did not have scrutineers, and we were the only ones with scrutineers. Voters were coming and saying we were unduly influencing people because the Canadian Alliance name was, as by statute, on the tags, and we had DROs ripping the name tags off the scrutineers.

• 1125

Those were two big issues I had, as well as an issue with the returning officer not being in a position to receive my nomination papers until the second week of the election. I can understand that, given what was basically a snap election call.

I'm wondering if there's a way that we can get a quick-facts book for returning officers to distribute to DROs. It would answer the basic, frequently asked questions or identify the things that are likely to come up. If DROs had that at the polling station, a book with just the basics—they obviously don't have to have a full, comprehensive knowledge of the entire act—they could consult it for particular issues like that and straighten problems out really quickly.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is an excellent suggestion, and it is one that we are taking to heart right now because we will need to revamp the training.

There is training for DROs that is given by the returning officers, given in each riding in accordance with instructions we provide. But I've come to the realization that some of it is going on already. What we need to develop as well is a series of examples as well as a manual, and we will use more visuals. In other words, we'll develop a video of maybe 20 minutes on common problem occurrences in polling stations and how to handle them. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where the elector faces the machine.

We have to train these 150,000 people, and it's not always easy. We need to do better—we will do better—in terms of the training of the DROs and the clerks who handle the people. This may mean that we will have to extend the training period. It may also mean—and I want the committee to be aware of this—that we will introduce some form of exam at the end of the training period to see if they understand what they have heard. If they don't pass the exam, we may have to tell you that the people you recommended did not pass the exam, and that's that.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Our list here is quite eclectic today. I'm going to go down to Mr. Bergeron for seven minutes, and then—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Along the same lines, Mr. Kingsley, on page 51 concerning returning officers, you speak of some of the problems you have encountered given the existing appointment process for returning officers. First of all, I am very pleased at the suggestion you just made regarding holding exams for the various electoral officers. More importantly, we should in the end decide to also oblige the returning officers to be subject to an exam in order to convince us of their skills and their ability to do the work. If we want to assure ourselves of the deputy returning officers and clerks' skills, and ability to do the work in the polling divisions, all the more reason, as I was saying, to also assure ourselves that the same skills and the same ability to do the work exist with the returning officers.

In the meantime, as there are not any legislative proposals being discussed yet and the government has not yet shown any openness in this respect either... During your last appearance, you brought up the possibility of appointing some sort of regional liaison officers. At that time, I asked you a question regarding whether or not these regional liaison officers could also be liaison officers that the political parties and candidates could get in touch with during the election period. I would also like to know what the present situation is regarding this mechanism you hope to put in place to ensure better co-operation between the various returning officers.

I have other questions. Would you prefer that I ask you all the questions and then to answer all of them at once or—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would prefer that you ask them one at a time, please.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Very well, I will ask them one at a time.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: First of all, I'm entirely in agreement with you as to the appointment of returning officers and the need for them for them to be tested or evaluated as is anyone who serves the public in a government institution.

• 1130

As to your other suggestion, we are considering various possibilities to allow members to turn to one individual in a given region for example. However, I must recognize that, like you, I like the idea that it would be the returning officers who would have this responsibility between elections.

We are also examining whether there would be a way for you to periodically inform us, since every year we send you a list of electors in your riding, as to your concerns about the list at that point in time. Therefore we would have an opportunity at least three times between elections to have your point of view as to the dependability of the list. We would share our point of view with you, and at the same time, we would obtain the views of the returning officers.

Therefore, instead of it being a designated person in the region, it could be each returning officer. I don't know what the honourable members would prefer, but I am certainly willing to take their preferences into consideration.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When you last appeared before the committee, Mr. Kingsley, you also undertook to look into the adjustments which were to be made to the electors' list, at your request, in each Quebec riding, based on the latest data provided by the Chief Electoral Officer in Quebec.

I don't know at what stage you are at in that process, whether you are able to give us any information about that today or whether we will be getting that information at a later point in time.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would ask Mr. Rennie Molnar to tell you what the status of that is.

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar (Director, Register and Geography, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): We have done some preliminary matching with the data.... We compared the data we sent out to the returning officers with the data they sent back to us, and we matched it exactly based on name and date of birth. Based on what we've seen so far, about 95% of the updates we've sent out to the field have been made.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And they were made in time for the election?

Mr. Rennie Molnar: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What about the remaining 5%?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We could perhaps get back to you on that at a later date, but the success rate is at 95%.

Mr. Luc Dumont (Director of Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): In the case of the remaining 5%, it often happens that where a returning officer receives a name, the elector had already taken the initiative to launch the revision. And at that point we haven't captured the data. That could vary from riding to riding based on the reaction of the electors. But we did note, in most cases, that returning officers faced with two requests viewed it as one single data capture. The data that was sent had already been received locally.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would it be possible at some point in time to have an accurate picture of the integration of this data in each of the ridings?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On page 52, regarding polling sites, you mention the problems which arose in Quebec. There was no agreement with school boards to allow polling stations to be set up in schools. To my surprise, the report does not deal with situations such as mine, for example, where the returning officer didn't even bother to ask the local school authorities whether polling stations could be set up in the schools.

This is a trick question, Mr. Kingsley. Please don't fault me for it. In your report, on page 90, you say:

Although the Commissioner did not use his new authority to seek an injunction during the election, he was prepared to do so.

That is a jewel of a sentence, but it leaves a great many questions unanswered.

The first question that comes to mind, the easiest one in my view, in the following: why did he not use this authority which he now had under the law?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is not a trick question. I am thankful for it on the contrary since it will allow me to clarify something. I think that the members of the committee are all aware that the Commissioner acts independently of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is obvious that the Commissioner and I regularly discuss cases which are submitted to him, if only to keep me in the loop.

• 1135

In his opinion, not enough information was provided for him to intervene as the law allows. That is the conclusion I came to. Ms. Davidson could perhaps add something since she was present at the meeting.

Ms. Diane Davidson (Director, Legal Services and Political Party Registrar, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): In matters of injunctions, as you know, one has to act quickly. It is an exceptional recourse. The Commissioner must, and it is clearly stated in his manual, which is available on the Web site, be aware of all of the evidence in order to proceed quickly and bring the matter before the courts to receive an injunction.

The manual also states that it is incumbent upon the complainant to provide this evidence to the Commissioner in a timely manner. It is not enough to simply ask that an injunction be granted while waiting for the Commissioner to carry out a proper investigation, as is the case for other alleged infractions.

Therefore, what you must understand is that an election takes place in a very short time frame and in order to grant an injunction, the complainant has to arrive with all the information in hand. And this was not the case, based on the information that we received, when we were asked to seek injunctions.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you. That is a complete answer.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer the first part of the question.

As to school boards in Quebec, from what we were able to understand, they are no longer responsible for authorizing the use of their premises. The decision is up to an advisory board where parents also play a role.

I have a list here of the five ridings that, during the last election campaign, were not able to use schools that they had used in the past. These are five ridings in Quebec. I could list them for you and tell you how many polling stations were affected by these decisions. I could do this right now or send it to you in a letter. What do you prefer?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think that my time is up. At any rate, we may have another opportunity to discuss this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

Next we'll have Monsieur Saada, followed by Mr. Godin and Mr. Harvard.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing before us.

My questions will deal almost exclusively with electoral lists. I will refer here to anecdotes which were repeated so often that they have almost become generalities. I would like to have your opinion not only as to their truth, but also as to the measures that you could take to eliminate this type of problem.

The 1-800 line for people who were abroad, based on what I have been told, was not immediately available. There was a certain delay before it was available. Furthermore, when people managed to get through on this 1-800 number and requested the appropriate documentation, the documentation was not forthcoming. Therefore, we lost an opportunity to register a certain number of voters who were abroad. I have several examples and I will spare you the details, but I would like to know whether the problem was widespread and if so, how it could be corrected.

And I will continue, since essentially it is the same question; it is the whole issue of registering names on lists which is of greatest concern to me.

As to Revenue Canada and the transfer of the names by Revenue Canada with the authorization of those involved, did it happen that some people who had authorized that transfer did not end up on the list?

Furthermore, a rather serious problem occurred. I don't know whether the same thing happened in the rest of the country, but in Quebec specifically, given that women are identified by their maiden name, given that the married name led to some confusion—I imagine that my colleagues went through the same thing—the same individual's name ended up on the list twice. Is that a problem that cropped up everywhere or not? If it was everywhere, what can we do to correct it?

• 1140

Here is an organizational problem, but one that is very important I believe for all my colleagues and for all candidates. For the first time, and you will correct me if I am wrong, but for the first time, people whose names were registered when the lists were last revised were added at the end of the poll in alphabetical order, while the rest of the poll was organized according to street names, which complicated things to no end when trying to find the name of the person. Are we the only ones who had this problem or was this a generalized problem and if so, what can be done to correct it?

There are other examples which are similar, but I think that I have already given you enough to work with.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will answer some of your questions and then ask my colleague Rennie Molnar to answer others, if you don't mind.

You mentioned the 1-800 line for people abroad. We have an 1- 800 line in Canada, in the United States, and the equivalent in Mexico. People from outside the country in other countries can also reach us quickly by telephone. I know that our general 1-800 number did have some problems and it is something that I acknowledged when I last appeared before you. I do not think that there was any specific problem, or a different problem, for people who phoned from abroad.

But I want the committee to know that the voters' list, for people abroad, in other words for Canadians who are abroad, does pose a problem. The documentation, despite improvements made using the Internet, despite the fact that people can obtain the forms on the Internet, does not speed up mail delivery between the country of origin and Canada. The form must be sent to us by mail. Registration must be done via a document, which can take a lot of time. As you know, an election campaign lasts 36 days.

We try to communicate information through Foreign Affairs and other departments to Canadians in order to ask them to register to vote. We have even taken some special measures for the snowbirds. They have associations which represent them. We did it during the election campaign and just before the election, this last time, since there was talk of a fall election.

But it will always be a problem. We will have to consider accepting voter registration over the Internet. It may take another generation in order to be able to ensure the identity of an individual through the Internet. Therefore, as long as we have to depend on postal services between two countries, unless it is between Canada and the United States, there will be problems in receiving the documentation. A lot of time will be lost.

Now, I don't know, Luc, if we have any data for specific years. I don't remember whether the report mentions the number of people who requested a form and whom we never heard from afterwards.

Mr. Luc Dumont: I will check.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Very well. I will provide an answer in the letter which I promised you and I will add this information to that letter. I think that it will be a small number of cases.

However, the international electors' list does present a problem. Registration and the time required to register complicate the situation. We have to obtain copies of original documents and not everybody has access to a fax machine abroad. Personally, I don't think that there are enough Canadians abroad who are using the system.

As to Revenue Canada, I tried to explain in my introduction that thanks to a new agreement we will be able to add to the voters' list the names of people who authorized that this data be provided. Until now, all we could do was change data concerning people who were already on the voters' list. That was the agreement because under the federal Elections Act, we could not determine their citizenship. As far as parliamentarians were concerned, you said that no names could be added to a federal document unless we could obtain confirmation that the individuals held Canadian citizenship. There were no other means at our disposal. There is no file in Canada of who is or is not a Canadian citizen. Therefore, we had no way of verifying anything for these individuals.

• 1145

What we are now doing with Revenue Canada is asking them to add that element so that the individual can state or attest that they are a Canadian citizen. Then, we will be able to add that person's name to the voters' list, which means that we will add 275,000 names per year, of which 225,000 will be new voters, young people who have achieved voting age. That is the agreement that we are finalizing with Revenue Canada at this time. The staff from the Privacy Commissioner's Office agree in principle with the approach that we have launched with Revenue Canada.

Mr. Rennie Molnar will now answer the question dealing with maiden names or married names, and Luc Dumont will answer the question on the revisions, if you don't mind.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rennie Molnar: In terms of women in Quebec being doubly registered under their maiden names and married names, I'm not aware of any widespread problem related to this. The register was constructed from the 1997 enumeration and election, so we would have picked them up once there. Then we only add young people from the liste permanente du Québec. We have not added a lot of people in Quebec, so it would surprise me if there are double registrations along that line.

In terms of the revision question, Luc.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Dumont: As to the lists which were at the polling stations this year and which were provided to the returning officers and the polling clerks, they were the same lists as those which were provided to the candidates.

In 1997, candidates received a geographically-based list while the returning officers received an alphabetical list. That created problems, of course, because there was difficulty in verifying one against the other. This year, at the request of the political parties, we standardized the list so that they are all in alphabetical order as are those in the returning offices and that way, everybody is working with the same tool.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But that also poses serious difficulties because an alphabetical list does not allow us to systematically identify the person's address. Therefore, even when checking the list, it is more complex. And as to organizing the election and getting the vote out, it is even more complicated.

Mr. Luc Dumont: It makes voting easier because people will give you their name. And then you immediately look for their name on the list. However, I do agree with you that when campaigning, it could create a problem.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Even when voting, I think that it delays the voting process. When a woman goes to a polling place after having checked that her name was on the voters' list and—I will get back to the issue of the maiden name versus the married name—she gives her name, and her name is not on the list, and she insists that her name is on the list because she checked, the people at the polling station must take the time to look up the maiden name and/or the married name. If there is a typographical error in the spelling of the name, it takes forever to find the name whereas with an address, it is much easier.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will take Mr. Saada's comments under advisement. We will also discuss the issue with the advisory committee we've created with the political parties since it is with this committee that we defined how the list would be drawn up. We will share with them the point of view expressed by the committee to see whether we can change the system to make everybody happy. If you wish, we will return before the committee to tell you what conclusions we have come to.

The Chair: Very well. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Godin, followed by Mr. Harvard, and then Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you for appearing before the committee. I would also like to thank you for having come to the NDP caucus. It was very important to us. After you left, we even said it would be a good idea if you came to caucus each year, to give the members of Parliament the chance to tell you how they feel. We found that it was a very good idea. I don't know what the other parties will do, but we found it very useful. I just wanted to tell you that this morning.

I have an idea. I don't know whether the other parties would agree with me. On the topic of deputy returning officers and poll clerks, it is the incumbent member who chooses the deputy returning officer. After that, the party who ranked second in the previous election chooses the next person.

• 1150

I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to change how this is done and have Elections Canada put ads in the paper seeking to hire independent individuals. I will tell you why; and I am ready to debate the issue.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, BQ): They just want to stack it with liberals.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. If that's what happens... I am fairly confident because in my region Liberals vote for the New Democratic Party, these days.

What happens most of the time, is that we have to go looking for people during an election campaign and we have to deal with getting the vote out. That requires twice as many people.

We would perhaps have an opportunity at that point to provide proper training to these individuals rather than providing them with training at the last minute. As you were saying, there were some who did not even bother to show up. They were not interviewed beforehand. Everything happens at the last minute; you have to try to find 200 people at the last minute.

As I said, this is an issue that I am willing to discuss within the committee. It's something that deserves to be examined.

Secondly, when these people are selected to work for one day for Elections Canada, I have no idea how much they are paid. Do you know what type of salary they receive? I think that it's around...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Just a moment. Continue and...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, it's a taxable income and also an insurable income. In a region such as mine where the unemployment rate is at 20% and probably at around 40% in November in the Acadian Peninsula, we are recruiting people whose income is really affected during the rest of their employment insurance period, where, the next time, they will be penalized because it falls during a fuller week.

If we really believe in democracy and if we really want to help people participate in a democratic process and if we really want to have higher voter turnout at the elections, I think that this is making our lives too difficult. It's a handicap, as I was able to witness in my region when we looked for people to work on the elections. We were told by people that they weren't going to go to work if they were going to be penalized by EI later on. People would have liked to work, but they did not want to affect their income.

I think that Elections Canada had paid some money in January and then when they applied for employment insurance, they were cut. It's really a problem in regions where there is seasonal work. And I would like you to look into the situation in these regions.

Lastly, with respect to polls and democracy, the old parties that have been around for a long time are well organized. I will not deny it. It's as though some polling results always come in at the last minute. I believe in parties whose candidates are able to go and sell their wares to the voters and not to the media or to polling firms that upset everything at the last minute. I don't think this is right and I think that it's dishonest.

I believe that getting elected in a riding is something profoundly personal. It's up to the candidate to convince his constituents. I believe in this type of democracy and not in a democracy driven by a big machine with lots of advertising which harms the electoral process and democracy in this country.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me, I would call on Janice Vézina to answer the questions on financing.

With respect to the deputy returning officers and the clerks, I will be quite frank in saying that I agree to some extent with your position. I will also say that it is my opinion that, eventually, the electoral system will function in the manner that you described, with deputy returning officers and clerks chosen by the returning officers who would have been chosen based on their merits, as we discussed earlier. Eventually, this is what will happen. Will this happen in time for the next elections? It will be up to the Parliament to decide.

Regarding last minute polls, as you know, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. This committee had the opportunity to discuss this during the debate on Bill C-2. The question that you ask me is really an issue of ethics, both for the candidates and for the parties. How do we deal with polls? I really have nothing more to say except to say that it is now illegal to publish the results of new polls on the last day before elections. Our job is to ensure that the law is respected.

With respect to other polls, I don't see a problem.

• 1155

[English]

Janice, did you wish to add anything about taxability and how much they make?

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): The regulations set out the rates of pay for people who work in an election. The deputy returning officer is paid $159.50 for the day, and the poll clerk $130.50. In addition, they receive $25 for attending a training session.

In terms of the deductions applied to their payments, we follow the employment insurance deductions rules of Revenue Québec, Revenue Canada, and Human Resources Development Canada, as well as the Canada Pension Plan. The rules are set by those organizations and we apply them.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: First, I think that we should make recommendations. The law is the law, this I know. I agree with you, but we are members of Parliament and we can change the law. Therefore, I think that it is good to have recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

If he was able to observe that there are certain problems in certain regions, he can make recommendations, which subsequently help the members to make decisions. I know full well who makes legislation, otherwise I do not know what I would be doing here. I know, for example, that there are some people whose recommendations are taken seriously when they are tabled in Parliament.

I would like to get back to the person who you were saying sympathized with me. But I am somewhat afraid about the comments that I heard which concern me, in the sense that what we need is a truly transparent process. The returning officers must not be appointed by the government or even by the Prime Minister. We have had enough of this...

Mr. Michel Guimond: That's right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: ...and then it is that person who decides. [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Guimond: There you have it!

Mr. Yvon Godin: I do not want... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... that I do not agree with.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Bingo!

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am talking about an open, public process, which is acceptable to the parties and not only... It is already enough that the Prime Minister, as I said, chooses and appoints everyone, which result in the complications that we have seen.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think I understood the meaning of what you were saying at the outset and that is why I answered in the way that I did. I stated that the system would eventually comprise a returning officer chosen based on merit and deputy returning officers and clerks who were also chosen based on merit.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Now to Mr. Harvard, then Ms. Parrish, then Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, I'd like to offer you a mixture of observations and questions.

I still think there's a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of voters in the wake of the changes to the permanent voters list. I think you should consider adding to your advertising budget, if that's possible.

In the area of advertising, I would say that you should be considering starting some kind of an advertising campaign well before the beginning of an election—let's say at the three-and-a-half-year point of a mandate. The election may not happen within four years; it may be four years and two months. But in the year or so leading up to an election, I think you should be acquainting voters with some of the rules.

This was a particular problem in my riding, mainly because enumeration was going on for two elections and the voters were confused. They thought they'd already been enumerated, but they didn't realize that one was for the provincial by-election and the other was for the federal election. Some of them found themselves not on the voters list, though at the end I think they did scramble and get there. So whatever you can do in that area would be beneficial.

I have a couple of questions regarding the updating of the voters lists and how accurate they really are.

Mr. Molnar seemed to be fairly happy with the updates. I think he mentioned a figure of 95%. But I understand you had a particular problem in the province of Alberta, Mr. Kingsley. From the information I have, I understand that in August 2000—three months before the election—about 800,000 changes were required to update the voters list.

• 1200

You didn't come anywhere close to that. I'm told your changes were in the area of about 188,000—the updating wasn't anywhere close to even the standards you set for yourself. If that's the case, there's a serious flaw.

Mr. Kingsley, I have a September news release from Elections Canada in front of me. It says that Elections Canada has signed agreements with data suppliers, including the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, provincial and territorial registrars of motor vehicles and vital statistics, and provincial electoral agencies with permanent lists of electors. My question is, was that agreement implemented before the November 2000 election? Again, this goes back to the province of Alberta. I understand you did not have multiple sources of data for your updates there. Maybe that's why the updates weren't as satisfactory as they should have been.

Another point I want to raise with you, Mr. Kingsley—and perhaps this concerns advertising again: in Winnipeg, we still do a lot of knocking on doors during election campaigns. Perhaps in a city like Toronto it's not as strong as it used to be, but certainly in Winnipeg, door knocking is still much in vogue.

This is especially a concern for older people, and I have a lot of senior people in my riding. When I started in politics 13 years ago, it was quite easy to gain access to large apartment blocks. But now it's virtually impossible. For a November election, especially, it's dark in the evenings, and people are just not inclined to let you in.

The last thing a politician wants to do is tell voters, well, it's the law. You don't want to throw your weight around; that's no way to gain friendship. But you have to do it if you want to gain access. Some apartment blocks have hundreds of suites, with hundreds and hundreds of voters, and you've got to get there.

If there's some way for you to increase your advertising so that people understand that, so much the better.

Those are my observations. And I especially want you to answer the questions about the voters list.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Before I ask Rennie Molnar to delve into the matter of the lists themselves, I would like to respond to your two recommendations about further advertising. I think the suggestion to do more advertising before the election is an excellent one, and one on which I intend to act.

With respect to candidates' right of access to apartment buildings, I'm pretty sure that information was in the ad we put out just as the election was launched. It's hard to see how we could do more advertising, unless we write to each apartment building. I could consider that. Or perhaps we could ask the returning officer to obtain the names from those places and consult with candidates about them as well—as we do on a number of issues.

I would be ready to prepare a letter bearing the signature of the Chief Electoral Officer to distribute to these people. That may be better than advertising. It may carry more punch if it goes directly to those people. So I will take that under advisement, sir, and see what kind of system we can develop.

I will add one thing. It's very difficult to be accurate with the numbers that are bandied about. But the specific figure of 95% was given in response to a question about the Quebec lists provided at the last minute. The question was about our success rate in adding that information to the lists. It had nothing to do with the final list that was produced. I want to make sure that's understood, before Rennie takes over to answer the other points. Thank you.

• 1205

Mr. Rennie Molnar: First of all, I'm not sure what you're referring to in Alberta—the 800,000 updates required versus the 180,000 we made. If you have more information on that, I'll be glad to follow up.

Mr. John Harvard: Can I just mention, Mr. Chairman, that I have a transcript from a committee meeting in the Alberta legislature. I don't know who is actually speaking, but the question is to Mr. Kingsley. In one paragraph he says:

Your figures indicated that the updates were comprised of some 188,000 changes, spread throughout all the electoral districts in Alberta. Yet Elections Alberta records indicate that the door-to-door confirmation process conducted in August 2000 resulted in over 800,000 electors in the province having to be revised.

Now, this was given to me just a minute before I walked into the committee room. But I assume Mr. Kingsley should know something about this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We received the results of Alberta's confirmation process with respect to the changes to the list and we matched those to the Alberta list.

Rennie, this is where I would like you to explain what numbers were done.

Mr. Rennie Molnar: Elections Alberta took its 1997 list, which had not been updated, and went through a door-to-door confirmation process. It may have made 800,000 changes. That list was then provided to us at Elections Canada. Just before the election we matched that to the national register, and as a result we generated about 180,000 updates. We sent them to the returning offices, as we did in Quebec, to have changes made as part of the revision. That was just taking advantage of the late-arriving data from Elections Alberta.

In terms of how we update the list in Alberta, we do not have access to provincial drivers' licence files in Alberta. We use information from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for tracking mobility or changes of address. And we do have access to vital statistics from the province, which we use for removing deceased electors.

The Chair: If I may ask, was the accuracy of the voters list in Alberta materially better or worse than it was anywhere else? I'm just trying to get a handle on that.

Mr. Rennie Molnar: It's about 4% or 5% lower than the national average, for two reasons: one, we do not have access to drivers' licence files; and two, there is high mobility in the province. That being said, our target was 80% accuracy, and we were actually in the high seventies. That's comparable to the 1993 election, when we reused a one-year-old list.

The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that.

Ms. Parrish, Monsieur Guimond, Mr. Macklin.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to first make a couple of comments. You hear things floating around here, and if no one ever objects to them then they come to be viewed as the truth.

With respect to the concept of exams, which Mr. Kingsley noted, and the discussion from Mr. Godin about a different process for appointing returning officers, I hope this concept of exams is for retraining and remediation, not for removal. Until it's changed, the Government of Canada still maintains the right to appoint returning officers. Just because we've all talked about it doesn't mean it's going to change.

I've had the opportunity to recommend a couple of returning officers—and no one chooses an idiot. I do not want my election to be a mess because I've chosen an idiot to run it for me as a returning officer. Actually, one fellow I did recommend I wanted to strangle by the time the election was over—because he was so well trained by you that by the time I dealt with him, he was being a nit-picking son of a gun.

I just don't want that floating around, as though it's a given that we're going to change the way we do this. I don't think that's part of the government agenda.

• 1210

As to the concept of exams, I think it's a good idea as long as the end result of the exam is remediation, not a recommendation to remove.

As far as redistribution, I picked this up from Mr. Strahl. As you well know, I had 350,000 people in my riding in 1993 before redistribution, and I only had $21,000 more in my budget than everyone else. I would hope, before we expand the House of Commons to include another cast of thousands, that we look at changing our budgets, and at a real redistribution where we cap the number of MPs in the House. I don't believe we should go any larger. I hope that's also on the agenda at some point.

I looked at—and thank you very much, I received—the material on the injunction process, on how you can stop something. It's extremely well done, but I don't think it would work. For example, in my case, where there was a drop being done by Canada Post of 41,000 pamphlets in my riding, I don't think you could have stopped that. Even if you did, it would have been too late. The barn door would have been closed and the horse would have been galloping madly down the street.

But I think, as you mentioned, sending letters to condos.... Getting into them is our big problem, and it was much better this time because we showed them the act. We got in. You do carry a lot of authority there.

I think you should also send cautions to every printer in the country that there's a $30,000 fine, or some fine, for taking work for a non-registered third party. I think you should also caution our own Canada Post, because whoever did the distribution in my riding had to go in there and fill out the postal walks, which takes two hours, and had to sign each one. If that person does not have the authority to stay under the $3,000 limit, Canada Post should be fined for allowing them to do that.

I think a lot of these things have to be done before an injunction process takes place. I think you carry a lot of authority, and I think your fines should be very stiff because once a pamphlet is distributed there's nothing we can do to stop the information from registering in people's minds.

So letters to printers, letters to Canada Post threatening them within an inch of their lives that they have to make sure the third party is registered and they have to make sure they're not exceeding the $3,000 limit—and then, if they do, you nail Canada Post, which would be an absolute joy to me because they really caused me a lot of aggravation.

My last point is that the report is very good. I am eagerly anticipating the chapter that comes in the fall. I'm wondering if we could change this requirement that you report within 12 months of an election, because you're going to have to do that all over again. That one section there from the returning officers, obviously, is still in progress, and I'm wondering if we shouldn't be making you go through this exercise twice—you have a lot better things to do with your time—and not do this report until you can do a full report. I gave you a bunch of questions in the last one, and I assume you're working on them—on voter turnout and the standard voters list. It's great, but the chapter I flipped to right away, is, nope, soon to come.

Rather than waste your time and waste your money—waste our money—we should maybe change that and say you report back within 12 months, and then we get a full report, and we don't have to do it in two phases.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Certainly the letters are things we can take under advisement, and we can also tell you about the feasibility of that in practical terms and in legal terms. Okay?

Whether I report once a year.... I must tell you one of the highlights of my job is appearing before this committee, and I mean that sincerely. So I don't mind coming in, but I'm ready to come whenever you wish me to be here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Guimond and Mr. Macklin.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, given that Elections Canada has my election report in hand and that I do not want to be investigated to death, even though I have nothing to hide, I will try to tone down my comments. It is like talking to the tax men about things: you always lose. However, I know that, in any case, I've nothing to reproach myself with. That is the first comment that I wanted to make.

My second comment is for the benefit of my colleague Mr. Godin. With respect, I distanced myself from what he said. I think that it could make sense, but in the context of more general reforms, and I think that your answer, Mr. Kingsley, followed along those lines.

• 1215

For the benefit of all my colleagues here and for the benefit of Mr. Godin, who lives in New Brunswick and who does not get the Le Soleil newspaper, I would refer you, and the NDP researcher could find this for you, to the Saturday edition of Le Soleil from approximately three weeks ago. The director general of elections of Quebec published a call for candidates to be returning officers, a process which is completely autonomous from the government and is based on criteria, requirements and a transparent selection process.

Ask the NDP researchers to find you this ad, and then you will see what is, in Quebec, a returning officer that is truly independent. If that were the case, I personally could accept your proposal of having deputy returning officers and clerks that are appointed by this person. The key is that this person be free and independent and report administratively to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Mr. Kingsley, this is the first comment that I would like to direct to you. I want to tell you that I am tortured, even anguished, by your proposal to come and meet with the caucus. My first reaction is to wonder what that might change. Memory being what it is, I remember very well that before the last election, there was a good meeting with you and our caucus. You even gave us Mr. Dumont's card and told us that if there were any problems, we could contact him.

In my riding, things were in a complete shambles and nothing changed, because the returning officer, at the local level, does not answer to you legally. So I have to wonder how that will change anything, a meeting with the caucuses. We will likely do it and my colleague, the whip and myself will probably suggest it to our colleagues. But meeting for the sake of meeting, or meeting so that you can say that you met with our caucus and that you told them all of this will not change things. Unless it is done on a daily basis, and specifically day-to-day during the 36 days of the election campaign, then it amounts to nothing.

I am starting to get hot under the collar. My report is going to be reviewed more carefully.

The third comment that I wanted to make, Mr. Kinsley, is about page 53.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Personally, I would have waited a couple of months before making such comments.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is not without reason that...

Mr. Michel Guimond: With respect to renting school facilities, on page 52, Mr. Kingsley, you refer to the returning offices and polling sites. Mr. Kingsley, do you live in Quebec?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, not at this time.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You don't live in Quebec. Look at what you have said. You must understand that the institutional councils aren't the only ones who are at fault. Under the Education Act, the institutional councils in Quebec are made up of parents who manage the use of the schools as well as the class timetables. An institutional council could decide that, in its school, there will be a greater number of music and arts courses than physical education courses. They have the responsibility for making the schools available.

I will explain why the institutional councils refused to allow the use of the schools. That's why I asked you if you lived in Quebec, but I could also have asked you if you have any young children attending elementary school. That is not the case for me, but I know full well that in Quebec, there is a new phenomenon: school daycare.

When the institutional council decides that there will be a professional development day and that no teaching will take place, this causes problems for the parents. In the year 2001, women have two jobs. In your team, there are professional women who have a dual career, they are both professionals and mothers. When there is no school, when the school gives the children back to the parents, it is difficult to find a babysitter. During the school breaks, the grandparents can look after the children, or your employees must take vacation leave.

• 1220

These in-school daycare centres are the reason why the institutional councils did not make the schools available. There are 536 children registered in the school daycare at Saint-Michel School, in Beauport. If the institutional council rents out the gymnasium, what will they do with these 536 youngsters who are in daycare? The daycare must continue to operate.

This could exonerate the returning officer, but he had been aware of the problem since last summer, because I had told him about it. Therefore, he should have drawn up a plan B and a plan C. Therefore, it is the school daycare phenomenon that has made things more complicated in Quebec.

I am just about to finish, Mr. Chairman. On page 53, you say:

all chosen to make voting as accessible as possible.

Mr. Kingsley, with respect and courtesy, I would like to say that in many ridings in Quebec... In any case, the matter is being studied. There are 63 chapters of grievances in certain Quebec ridings, and the work is still ongoing. This study will be published at the appropriate time because there were problems. When you say that all polling stations are chosen to make the voting accessible to the greatest number of people, this may be true, in theory. But if I tell you that in a room four times smaller than this one...

What I mean to say, Mr. Kingsley, is that I will be writing to you to ask you to send some of your staff to my riding to see, along with the returning officer, a room that is four times smaller than this one in which there were six or eight polling divisions. As candidates, we walk around and we shake everyone's hand. You know that, according to the act, we can enter without a warrant. We could see who the person was voting for; I could see if the person was voting for me.

I will give you other examples: a room the size of the reading room upstairs, the Railway committee room; a church becoming a community center with 35 or 40 polling divisions. It was bedlam, Mr. Kingsley. Some rooms in small community centers held 10 or 12 polling divisions. There were 350 people lined up outside, in the rain. This was November 27, not July 27, when we could have gone to vote wearing our shorts and our flip-flops. This was November 27, in the cold and rain.

When we arrive, we shake everyone's hand. People were saying: we're moving backwards. What kind of democracy is this? Mr. Kingsley, this is worrisome. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond. In allowing Mr. Guimond to complete his remarks, we've gone way over the time. Could you respond briefly, if that's possible?

Mr. Kingsley.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: First of all, let me say something. The great majority of our returning officers act in good faith. I state this categorically. This does not make my recommendation any less valid, and I will repeat it.

You say that there is no legal tie between myself and them. There is one, but the real question is that the Chief Electoral Officer did not choose them. This is something that, deep down inside, everyone knows. You also know that the Chief Electoral Officer will not take away someone's job, will not fire them. I can only make a recommendation.

You can imagine what things are like during an election. Who should I send the recommendation to? Who is there? How can we get this done quickly? Who can we substitute? To use one of your expressions, it is bedlam.

But I still think it is a good idea for me to meet with each caucus, as I have done in the past and as I hope to continue to do, or meet with members as a group or individually. If I felt that the Chief Electoral Officer had no power, I would have left long ago. I would have said that this office is not worth having. But that is not the case at all. What I am seeking is an improvement, a large- scale improvement to the system.

With respect to the schools, I appreciate the information you have given me, because it allows me to better understand the problem, even though it does not make it any easier to solve with the returning officers.

• 1225

We were left without these locations that were quite acceptable. How many times did I ask the returning officers to arrive at an agreement with the candidates for the location of the polling stations! Now, they come up against practical cases that are often impossible to deal with. I will probably visit some of these places myself to have a look. I will go where you would like me to. I will take a day or two, many even three, to do that, in order to understand what you are telling me.

I can tell you that I will be talking to the returning officers. We speak to them often. It is important for the candidates to know, if possible, before the elections, because we had asked them to do this in April and May, as well as when the election was called, when we were finalizing the list. I imagine that some of them were quite busy. That's understandable. The timeframe is short. Nevertheless, they will have to take the time to do their work with the candidates. They have to tell you about the reliability of the list. I had asked them to tell you how many changes there would be in your riding so that you might be able to prepare accordingly.

That is my response to your comments, and I thank you for them. I would like to say something now, because I don't want a comment to be taken at face value for lack of a rebuttal: there is no relationship between the audit and what is being said here. On that, I give you my word.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: We'll test that out.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I don't want to test it out today.

The Chair: The proof will be in the pudding.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Mr. Kingsley, you're talking about updating the lists by way of CCRA information. And since that information, in many cases, is submitted electronically, I guess the question I have is, why aren't we moving to a full electronic voters list that could be registered over the Internet by any individual? In fact, I don't think there's anything unique any more. There's no signature required on electronic filings of income tax. So why aren't we heading in that direction?

Secondly, why don't we have at a polling station at least a single post where there's a CPU and available computer that can quickly do an electronic search to find, as individuals come into that polling station, where they ought to be voting? In fact, I think a lot of the time is wasted, and the delays are created, because people just simply don't know where they vote within the various polls. An electronic means, at least at the door, so to speak, would speed up that process, especially in light of the fact that we're adding people to various parts of the list. And the paper lists would just be a simple backup in case of dispute.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to Internet registration, we're going to be looking at what it is that can be done in respect of the present law and what it is that might be required to be amended—either the registration or the ability to change one's address. We're looking into that at this time. And I want to come back to this committee because this is something you're going to have to approve, legally, if we're going to go that way. I want the committee to know it's not small potatoes. It's the list. You have put very stringent requirements with respect to the list in the law, and I'm sure that before they're changed, you'll want to think them through. And that includes what can occur with the Internet, in terms of registration.

As to the whole matter of providing electronic means in polling stations, I mentioned to you earlier that we had 56,000 polling divisions in over 17,000 locations for one day. How can we computerize? That is something I will have to try to come to grips with.

Mr. Paul Macklin: I would like to believe that at least there should be an option available, in other words a software provided, and that in fact they can facilitate that. That is, the returning officer at that site should attempt to do so, whether they rent a machine for the day or whatever. But if the software were available, I would think in most cases it would be a great assistance to those within that polling station.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it's a suggestion that we can look into more deeply.

• 1230

I can tell you one thing. Certainly we've seen, with the speed of change in the electronic world, that one of the things we're going to be trying to do is to do our updates more rapidly—on the register—in a more timely fashion. With respect to cartography, we want to do the same thing, that is, the ability to print much more rapidly. Right now we need a four-month lead time. We lose out on data that we have on file, because we have to take the four months. That doesn't help you. It doesn't help us.

Through the advances in technology, we've seen some of these things become more and more possible, and that is certainly something that may become possible very soon.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we go to second rounds, I just want to touch on something for clarity.

In discussion here today we've referred to returning officers and scrutineers—generically—but in fact we've left out a couple of categories in the food chain.

The returning officers, of course, are appointed currently by the Governor in Council after some kind of an informal, bottom-up recommendation process, but certainly no exams and no advertising. That's the returning officer.

The returning officer appoints deputy returning officers and poll clerks from lists provided by the political parties. It was my observation, Mr. Kingsley, that almost all the people contact and decision-making that happens on election day happens under the administration of the DRO—the deputy returning officer—not the returning officer. So if there are weaknesses in how people are handled on election day—at the polling stations—it is really the focus of the deputy returning officers. If there is to be more training and more value-added put into that aspect of the operation, that is where we have to focus our training resources. It's possible, of course, to train the returning officer and all the DROs in advance, but it would be the absence of skills in the DROs that would be most apparent to the public on election day. If there were a breakdown in dealing with the public, it would be because of something somewhere on the DRO/poll clerk side, rather than the returning officer, who probably on election day is ensconced in his or her office with the phone lines flashing trying to just cope with all of the things that aren't working. That's probably someone the public never sees on election day—the returning officer—where all these things come to a head.

Lastly, the scrutineers are chosen by the candidates. They are not paid anything.

So I just want, for the record, to clarify all those different functions, because it had come out differently with different members.

You probably don't have a comment, but if you do, that's fine.

Monsieur Guimond has asked for a second round, and since it is 12:34, I know Mr. Guimond will use his time efficiently.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I have two points that I did not have a chance to raise earlier.

I have a question about the voter information card, that is mentioned on pages 63 and 64, Mr. Kingsley. When know that in many polling divisions, it was a valuable tool, that in no way inhibited voting. Many election staff members depended on the voter information card to identify the person. I believe I mentioned that the other day.

What can be done in terms of co-operation with Canada Post? In large residential buildings with 32 or even 64 apartments, letter carriers left them literally in bundles, in piles, beside the ad- bags. In Quebec, there are ad-bags with the community newspaper and a bunch of grocery ads. Often, 98% of that advertising goes in the garbage. Having gone door-to-door myself, I saw piles of cards stacked just anywhere instead of being put in each of the mail boxes.

• 1235

What co-operation exists with Canada Post? In our area, there were people seen with piles of 150 or 200 cards in their possession. If no checking is done by the elections staff at the polling division, it opens the door to fraud and the possibility of voting in someone else's name.

Here's a question. I said earlier that on page 53 you state that the polling sites were “all chosen to make voting as accessible as possible”. As you have seen from my examples, I do not think that this statement is really accurate. You understood that.

With respect to polling sites, when our returning officer was told that things were not working, he told me what his budget was. He told me that his budget would not enable him to put fewer polling divisions in a church where there were 40 and to find two or three other places. He said that he did not have an adequate budget and that that was why things were the way they were. I then asked him whether democracy had a price. Does the returning officer really have a budget when it comes to locating polling sites?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will answer the second question first: no. Returning officers are given budgetary guidelines that they must endorse and try to follow. If more resources are required at some point, they simply need to notify us and authorization will be given within two hours. I do not know of any case where authorization was not given. As I have mentioned here, the Chief Electoral Officer has the statutory authority to spend the money it takes to carry out a federal election properly.

Of course, I use a budget process to do this. You asked me to appear before you, even though I have the statutory authority, to lay out and explain my budget estimates. You asked me to do this even though I have the statutory authority. I do the same thing with the returning officers. I turn around and tell them, through my staff, that we expect them to spend a certain amount of money. It is up to them to decide whether that amount makes sense and whether they can agree. We ask them to endorse the budgets that are allotted. If they need an adjustment later, they can ask for it by telephone. Many authorizations were even given during the election, since we expected more people to register on election day, so that as many people as requested could be hired to do registration. We even targeted ridings and asked them to double their staff, and some of them refused to do so. They said that they were not worried.

So there is no issue with the budgets. It is not an issue. It should not be seen as one. Moreover, I say this personally when I meet with the returning officers: no Canadian should be deprived of his or her right to vote for an administrative or financial reason, and it is your duty, as returning officers, to ensure that this is the case. I do need, however, a framework for managing things at Elections Canada. That takes budgetary guidelines. But that does not mean spending limits. They cannot say that they cannot spend more than a certain amount. They cannot say that.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Do you agree with me, Mr. Kingsley, that this list of locations... I know that you are preparing to answer my question on the maps, but I would like to finish on the issue of locations before your visit to my riding, I am sure.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is true.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Do you agree with me that the list of potential locations... We know that there will be an election in Canada in 2004 or 2005 at the latest. Does everyone here agree that there will be an election before November 27, 2005? It would seem to me, that the answer is yes, because we live in a democracy. If there were a military coup, well then we would not be able to guarantee anything, but let us assume that in a democracy, there will be an election before November 27, 2005. Do you agree with me that this list of locations for polling stations should be drawn up immediately? Instead of rushing two days before an election is called, we could...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It already exists, this list.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You know this for a fact?

• 1240

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It exists. We have a centralized list for the whole country, because we want to ensure that the locations are accessible to persons with disabilities, which is why we have the list.

Problems arise when we must modify it at the last minute or without thinking, because of certain things that might have happened. A building may have burned down, etc., or schools on which you were counting may tell us that their facilities are no longer available. These types of things happen.

We have a list. This list exists. What we will ask the ROs, as I mentioned earlier, is to check it more often, to update it more frequently. As I stated earlier, money is not a problem.

A Voice: I would like to see that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The problem will not be a lack of money. These are things that they will be able to discuss with you every year or when you want to meet them to discuss this.

As I stated earlier, I will change the way the ROs are organized and the way... I asked for your input. Would you prefer to meet with me or would you prefer to meet with someone at the regional level? I am waiting for your response on this. Perhaps we could do both. It is up to you to decide.

With respect to your first question, on the voter information card, we pay Canada Post the cost of a first-class letter. Now, obviously, for bulk mailings, it is a special price.

Each of these cards must be delivered to the address indicated on the card. If there were cases where they were left in a bundle in a building, then I will have to see what happened. Perhaps there could be an audit. That was not the arrangement that we had with Canada Post. I must admit that we felt we received excellent service which helped us on a number of levels.

Now, I will verify to see if there were cases where the cards were not delivered to each mailbox, even though it was a first- class letter. This document was treated as a first-class letter. We paid for it as though it were a first-class letter. Therefore, it is very important.

I also want the committee to be aware of the fact that I am in the process of re-examining how the voter information cards work. In fact, the card may be delivered to a person that no longer lives at that address. We would like to see if there would be some way to separate the information on the card, in such a way as to tell the people that live at that address where they have to vote. This is the information that is found on the back of the card. The card would also have to follow the voters so that they will know that they are in the wrong location on the list. We are in the process of verifying all of these things.

What is strange is that for the 10 by-elections, it worked marvellously when we sent the card to the address. During the general election, because of the numbers, I think that caused a problem. This is a different problem than the one you mentioned. I will be honest with you: that may also cause a problem. We will see how that can be modified as well.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Godin, you've indicated that you want to ask one question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, one or two very short—

The Chair: They have to be real short.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Between the hospital and the church.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is about hospitals. Efforts are being made to get some people to vote, even some people who are in other countries. Getting these votes that come from all across the world can cost quite a bit. The vote in the office of the CEO takes place three days before the election, I believe.

I was made aware of the problem from someone who did not know that she was going to be hospitalized for a day. She was advised the day before. She entered the hospital and there is no system in place for someone to vote when they are two miles away from the location where they can vote. We are making all kinds of efforts to count the ballots from all around the world, and yet someone who is hospitalized and who wants to exercise their right to vote...

In my riding, there are four hospitals. Why is there not a special team for people who want to vote in these hospitals on election day? I am not suggesting that everyone votes, because I know that there are advance polls, but in special cases, these people should be allowed to vote. It is not their fault.

Secondly, the issue of accessible locations was brought up. I will give you an example. As you know, Catholics built big churches. That means you have deep basements and there is no elevator to access them. It was a shame to see a person with a disability, on November 27, in a wheelchair, voting outside during a storm. I do not think that the Chief Electoral Officer did this on purpose and I think he understands the problem, but this is completely unacceptable in the year 2000.

• 1245

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I agree with you as regards your second comment. We need to find locations that are accessible. You should know however that more than 99% of the polling stations were accessible to persons with disabilities during the last election, which is an improvement. However, we need to aim for 100%, and we must only be satisfied when we reach 100%.

With respect to your first question, voting in acute-care hospitals will always cause a problem under the existing law, because it requires a special ballot to vote in a general hospital. We do not know where these people come from. They do not come from the same riding. Therefore, they require a special ballot where we can fill in the name of the candidate, and we can forward the vote accordingly to the returning officer or to the head office here. The law requires that the lists be drawn up according to changes made up until the sixth day, because it takes us that much time to prepare the final lists. Therefore, from day 5 until day 0, we can no longer allow people to vote in these areas, because we do not know the ridings. It is not like in a long-term-care home, where we can set up a mobile polling station. The problem will remain, Mr. Godin, and it is really terrible, because I get letters from people after each election, telling me that they were hospitalized unexpectedly. The problem will persist until we are able to improve the computerized systems to compile the lists.

Now, you have to remember that we are talking 57,000 lists for the polling day. There is one list per polling division, for every 350 voters. That is what is difficult about producing the lists. They are produced for the polling day for every 350 voters per polling division. It is very time-consuming. I cannot shorten the time it takes at this point.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Bergeron advises he has a 30-second supplementary question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This is not so much a question as a comment, and I hesitate to make it, given the comment my colleague made earlier, in view of the fact that we are tabling our election reports today. But if I were Mr. Guimond, I would have waited. I am not particularly superstitious, but I always avoid walking under ladders, and constantly remind myself to leave nothing to chance.

I wanted to make a point of commenting on what the chairman said earlier. While in most cases the voter's primary contact on election day is with the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk in the polling division, I would say that the last election was perhaps unique in that a great number of the problems that were encountered and that gave rise to public dissatisfaction, at least in many ridings, including mine, were not the result of incompetence or mismanagement by polling division staff. They resulted from decisions by our returning officer, and consequently people were very upset and filed complaints with the returning officer herself, with their member of Parliament, with the Liberal party and wherever they could. They were very dissatisfied with the organization on polling day.

As Mr. Guimond rightly said, when Canadians are forced to wait outside in the pouring rain in a line-up that is hundreds of metres long, that has nothing to do with the competence or management of the polling division by the deputy returning officers or the clerk. It stems from a totally inappropriate choice of polling site for that day. I would be very interested to see your inventory of polling sites, especially for my riding.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now, colleagues, that would complete—if members feel this way—the questioning and the commentary in relation to the report on the 37th general election from our Chief Electoral Officer. That being said, colleagues, we'll just do a very brief discussion on future business. Our witnesses are free to go at this time.

Thank you very much.

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

• 1250

The Chair: There may be a need, Mr. Kingsley, to come back again. As you've indicated, you don't mind doing that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'll be back.

The Chair: Now, colleagues, on future business, I want to point out that we will be having a steering committee meeting on Thursday morning at 11. But I want to record here items of future business that I think we will have to deal with. This is not in any particular order, but we have a subcommittee report on the parliamentary calendar. That subcommittee was chaired by Ms. Catterall. They have completed a report, and we'll have to deal with that.

Secondly, Monsieur Guimond has asked us to take up again the issue of the procedure for distribution of documents during committee meetings.

Thirdly, we have at least one outstanding item in relation to the televising of House committees. I think we might want to get maybe 20 minutes of information from individuals within the House administration who take care of the archiving and bringing together of the recorded material, whether it's audio or video in the House and at committees. I don't think that's much more than 20 minutes, but one never knows. I think we should hear from them.

I've also noted the requisition for a meeting by four parties in the committee under Standing Order 106(3). I think that certainly has to come up at the steering committee on Thursday morning.

There are other smaller items that we want to deal with.

Of course, Mr. Robertson points out we have the matter of privilege referred here from the House of Commons involving the Minister of Justice, so we can take that up at the steering committee too.

That's a listing of what we have to deal with. There are other things, to be sure. Having said that, we could adjourn, unless members want to comment. I think we can proceed to the steering committee meeting, if that's okay with members.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What is on the steering committee's agenda for Thursday?

[English]

The Chair: The steering committee itself may have a report for the main committee, so that would be one thing—if there is such a report.

Secondly, I think we want to deal with the parliamentary calendar issue.

I think it would be suitable to deal with Mr. Guimond's issue on the distribution of documents.

We could also have the witnesses in on the archiving of proceedings. The steering committee itself might recommend to the committee that we don't do any of those, that we do something else, but I'll plan an agenda for those items knowing that the steering committee could recommend other items to the committee in the meeting that follows.

I view the meeting as a meeting where we can deal with a number of items. But again, we haven't had a steering committee meeting, and we could benefit from that before we proceed too much further.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, since all committee members are here today, we can make a decision about Thursday's meeting. Given that the agenda for Thursday's meeting is apparently still somewhat sketchy, perhaps we should immediately put the letter our four colleagues sent you last week on the agenda.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we could discuss that on Thursday. There is no impediment to our discussion of the Standing Order 106(3) requisition letter on Thursday. I just thought it might be useful for the steering committee to address that in case it was going to go longer than—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My concern, Mr. Chairman, is quite simple. If we do not decide now that this is what we want to discuss Thursday, chances are that between now and then, you will call Thursday's meeting to deal with other issues. On your own authority, you are going to put a certain number of items on Thursday's agenda. As a result, even if it meets immediately before, the steering committee will not have the authority in the ensuing minutes to change what was put on the committee's agenda.

• 1255

Perhaps we could agree right now to discuss the letter that was sent to you under orders 106(3) and 108 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, given that the agenda for Thursday's meeting is a bit sketchy.

[English]

The Chair: Well, I don't know how much time that will consume. The reason I don't know is that we haven't had a chance to discuss it among ourselves.

I have a rough idea of how much the other business items will take. Your chair is in the hands of the committee. The steering committee could recommend to the main committee on Thursday that we pre-empt all of this and study the size of work boots, if it's within our mandate.

A voice: The size of what?

The Chair: Any particular—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You are talking about work boots.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. As I say, there is no impediment to putting the requisition letter on the list of items to be discussed on Thursday at our main meeting, as well as at steering committee. It is my intention to deal with the other items on Thursday, but if the steering committee or main committee views it otherwise, we'll do whatever we think we want to do. So if you wish me to list the Standing Order 106(3) requisition letter as an item of business for Thursday—if there's no objection—I will do that, and we'll see how the agenda unfolds on Thursday after the steering committee. Is that okay? All right.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: According to the Standing Orders, if someone submits 106(3), do we not have to convene a special meeting within ten days of the receipt of the letter?

The Chair: That is correct. This committee must hold a meeting to deal with that requisition to present—

Mr. Grant McNally: A separate meeting for just that topic.

The Chair: —within ten sitting days.

Now if colleagues were to agree that the Standing Order 106(3) business item would not consume an entire meeting—if it was going to be a 20-minute or half-hour discussion—then we could clearly deal with it on Thursday. But if that particular business item is going to consume an entire meeting—a dedicated meeting—then we'll have to address that at the steering committee, and it could be the following Tuesday. We could select that.

Thank you. We're adjourned.