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]

Thursday, May 17, 2001

• 1113

[English]

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

This morning we are dealing with our reference from the House on estimates. We're dealing with vote 20 under Privy Council, and that involves Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who is with us today. Also with him are the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Patricia Hassard, and the Director of Election Financing, Janice Vézina. There are undoubtedly others from the Chief Electoral Officer's operation here to assist us, if we need that.

Welcome, Mr. Kingsley. I'm pretty sure you'll have an opening statement.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Please proceed with that, and then we'll get to questions.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you very much, sir.

I'm very pleased to appear before this committee to discuss the main estimates for my office for the year 2001-02. Earlier this week, I provided the chair with my responses to questions and issues raised—as a matter of fact, it's on your desks right now—by members at my appearances before this committee since the general election.

Members of the committee are aware that the agency operates under two separate budgetary authorities: the administrative vote and the statutory authority. The budget related to the administrative vote, or vote 20, is the portion of our funding that you are now considering in committee before reporting to the House. It totals $11.8 million for the fiscal year in question. It provides for the salaries of a core group of permanent employees.

The budget related to the statutory authority of the Chief Electoral Officer totals $22.3 million for the same year. It provides for all of the other expenditures of the office.

Please note that there has been a shift in budgetary allocations from the statutory authority to the administrative vote, compared to previous years. This is due to the fact that following an agreement with Treasury Board, 156 term positions are being converted to indeterminate status. Indeterminate positions automatically fall under the administrative vote; therefore it is only a shift in the votes and this has no impact on the total spending by my office. It is a shift between the two votes.

• 1115

Our estimates were prepared before the November 27 general election; therefore adjustments will be required for post-election wrap-up and for enhancements to systems and processes in preparation for the next general election.

As part of the accountability of my office to Parliament, I will now outline our plans and priorities for the coming year. That year will be dominated by activities arising from last November's general election, obviously.

Following the election, we undertook a comprehensive post-electoral evaluation, which we will complete later this year. I've described this to you in previous presentations. It involves a thorough review of our own operational data, as well as consultations with a large number of stakeholders, as described before. The information gathered through this process will shape much of what we will undertake this fiscal year.

Follow-up on the 2000 general election will include a review of the financial returns of 1,808 candidates, 11 registered political parties, 1 suspended party, and 49 third parties. We will also determine the amount of reimbursement owed to the 685 candidates and 5 registered political parties that qualified.

Based on our post-electoral evaluation, as well as further research on the issue of voter participation undertaken in cooperation with academics, we will endeavour to implement refinements to our mission-critical systems, functions, and processes that will improve their effectiveness.

The commissioner of Canada Elections will continue to investigate allegations of contraventions to the Canada Elections Act and to prosecute when warranted.

To assure Canadians that the electoral process is transparent, we are publishing extensive information about the general election, such as poll by poll results. This information is either already available or will be available on Elections Canada's website, on paper, or on CD-ROM. You should have received your copies on CD-ROM, and they include the 1997 general election, by the way, which I thought might be of interest to members.

Making the vote more accessible is an ongoing pursuit for my office. As provided by section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act, we will keep abreast of developments on the use of new technologies for that purpose, while seeking to resolve secure identification and privacy issues. In other words, we will do this before we come back to committee.

We will maintain our state of readiness to deliver by-elections and other electoral events by training newly appointed returning officers and providing training to update the skills of experienced returning officers, as well as enhancing our training materials. We will update the register of electors, with federal and provincial sources. We will revise the national sites database for potential polling locations, which was discussed with various members of the committee last time. We will regularly update the national geographic database to produce even more accurate electoral maps.

We have also undertaken—or soon will undertake—a number of initiatives that will improve our service delivery and the quality of our products. They are mainly in the areas of the national register of electors, communications with returning officers, and communications in general.

[Translation]

We will examine and revise the Register Program, based on lessons learned, so as to maintain a comprehensive, accurate and up-to-date Register ready to produce improved preliminary voters lists. In particular:

- We have already initiated a review of the software we used during the election (to update the list of electors) so that we will be able to update the list when electors move from one electoral district to another during the revision period.

- We are planning to conduct with returning officers a cyclical joint review of the National Register of Electors and Geography Products so that the geographical information can be improved and validated by our stakeholders in a more timely fashion. This is a role that we will have to discuss with the returning officers, and it would involve members of Parliament, because every year, on October 15, you receive an updated list of electors for your riding. So there will be a new role, that we will define together with you, regarding the annual list of electors.

- We have just concluded an agreement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with the support of the Federal Privacy Commissioner to modify the tax forms so that electors have the opportunity to give their active consent to be added to the Register. This will significantly improve the quality of future preliminary lists of electors, by including some 275,000 new voters in the Register annually - of which 225,000 will be youth. At the same time, it will allow us to meet present expectations that electors are being added to the Register through their tax form consent, and this consent only allows us to change their current information.

• 1120

- We are increasing the integration of our Register and geographical information, to improve the consistency of our elector and geographical products. For this purpose, we will associate with others who are doing similar work, possibly Canada Post and other organizations.

At the end of this month, we are consulting a group of returning officers to establish better means of consultation and testing new programs through on-line communications with all returning officers. This means that we would establish permanent electronic communications, which do not currently exist, except during electoral periods.

This could lead to the establishment of a regional network of returning officers, which would be active during the planning, development and implementation phases of projects that affect them, coordinated by a senior regional returning officer in collaboration with other returning officers.

A number of steps are being taken to improve access to our toll-free public enquiries line and the quality of service it provides. This service does not pose any problems between elections. Moreover we will create a separate toll-free enquiries line for candidates and parties during an election.

We will also expand and enhance our use of automated answering systems and of our Web site - so that they can more readily answer routine questions.

For the growing number of electors using our Web site, we plan to make it possible to get information on their polling location simply by entering their postal code or their address. More than 50 per cent of Canadian homes are connected to the Internet. Thus, we will have to make greater use of this tool. During the last election, we received 12 times more hits on our Web site than during the 1997 elections, and we had almost one million visitors.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): [Editor's Note: inaudible]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Invariably.

We are reviewing our advertising products and adapting our messages for the next general election, to reflect the fact that it will be the second general election in which the Register is used. Thus, there will be changes in the communications program, on television and on radio.

We are exploring ongoing promotional activities between elections, as one of the committee members suggested to us the last time.

We are reviewing our elector education program to reach a larger number of future voters in the 16 to 18-year-old group. For this purpose, we will try to work with provincial authorities responsible for education.

We will continue with the necessary preparatory activities for the upcoming review of electoral district boundaries. It is expected to begin in mid-March 2002. This preparatory work will minimize the start-up time for the 10 electoral boundaries commissions. Last time, there were 11 of them. Let me remind you that when Nunavut was established, the Northwest Territories only kept one seat. Thus, we no longer need a commission for the Northwest Territories.

According to the present best case scenario, any federal election called after July 1, 2004 would be held under new riding boundaries. I have written to the committee on this matter yesterday. You have a copy of that letter in your hands this morning. This would lead us to a natural four year term, and allow this election to take place within the new riding boundaries.

We will continue to provide technical expertise and analysis to support parliamentary initiatives—which means you—to review and revise electoral legislation. Moreover, for this purpose, in the fall, I will submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report on the amendments I consider desirable for the better administration of the Canada Elections Act.

• 1125

Finally, we will continue to host regular meetings, every two or three months, of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, to discuss issues related to electoral administration and legislation. The next meeting is scheduled for June 1st. Its agenda will focus mostly on discussion of major recommendations I plan to make in my fall report and which are of obvious interest to political parties.

This is but an overview of what we plan to achieve in the next fiscal year. Additional details are provided in our Report on Plans and Priorities, which you recently received.

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you. My colleagues will gladly answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

We have quite a number of potential issues raised in your remarks. We're now putting together a list. I have indications from Ms. Gallant, Mr. Strahl, and Monsieur Bergeron, and we'll go down the line.

Ms. Gallant. We'll be working with seven-minute rounds.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley, for your presentation. We appreciate your being here.

Recently, there was a disclosure from the member for Scarborough Southwest indicating there was an inappropriate use of material related to the campaign, representing a serious breach of the democratic process.

The Chair: Ms. Gallant, in the last meeting our colleagues allowed you a fair bit of liberty, a fair bit of elbow room, when asking questions. I would just suggest, when you're addressing an issue that involves another colleague in the House, you may, in your language, wish to accommodate the possibility that there are other views or other perspectives on what happened. Just out of fairness to all our colleagues in the House, and to anyone else in the country, it would be best if your remarks or questions were phrased in the subjunctive tense and allowed the possibility of other views.

It may not be appropriate, in this circumstance, to make certain assumptions about certain things. It's up to the rest of our colleagues. I just wanted to indicate that your question frames issues in certain ways. This is the style you're using. You're entitled to use your own personal style, that's great, but there are the other contingencies.

I just thought I'd mention that. Go ahead, you have the floor.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promise not to use anyone's name.

Canadians are calling MPs offices and they're outraged over what has appeared in the papers. It's reflecting on all members of Parliament.

What action is your office prepared to take in order to restore confidence in the Canadian public in our electoral process?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are two things that I would wish to elaborate upon here. There is first of all the fact that a press release was issued by my office indicating quite clearly what happens to the ballot and the secrecy of the vote. This was as a result of this committee requesting that I do so. I was more than willing to do so anyway, but the chairman let me know by sending me a letter, and I have done this.

I checked the media last week, and not one medium has picked up on the press release, despite the fact that this is an important topic. Not one has even made an indirect allusion to what we said in the press release, even though we followed our usual press release means of issues, which they all follow and know about.

Certainly when individual Canadians write to us on any matter relating to this, we use the text that's in the press release. It covers the situation and explains it perfectly—how there is no way of tracing anybody's vote under our system. That's one thing.

• 1130

The other matter is that whenever a complaint against someone about a possible breach of the Canada Elections Act is sent to me, I refer that automatically to the commissioner of Elections Canada. The mandate of the commissioner of Elections Canada is to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds for an investigation. If he decides there are, he would then carry out an investigation, and based on the results of the investigation, he will decide whether or not to prosecute in a court of law. That decision rests with the commissioner.

This is an opportunity for me to explain to all of the members that the commissioner does not make public statements about where a particular complaint rests within the system. He keeps the complainant advised of the progress, and the complainant is then free to do as he wishes with that information. In the meantime, when a decision is made to prosecute, that is made public by the very taking out of the instruments for prosecution.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Strahl, followed by Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Godin, and Mr. Borotsik.

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

Mr. Kingsley, I appreciate the way you itemized your responses to the questions in the last committee meeting. I know it takes a lot of time and energy to do that, but it certainly makes it straightforward to go point by point. I like that format. I recommend it, and I think it's appreciated.

On the letter of May 16 that you sent to Mr. Lee describing the possible changes on the speeding up of the readjustment of the electoral districts, you mentioned that if everything went well, it is now possible to actually have the redistribution in place for any election called after the end of June 2004. You mentioned it was just a tightening up of the process. Is there extra money involved? Is it going to cost more to do it quicker, rather than under the process that was traditionally followed, the previous modus operandi, or is it the same cost either way?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's either the same cost or slightly less because we will save a little bit of time. We've gotten together with the Chief Statistician and agreed that he would produce his report, which is vital to and triggers the process, one month earlier than foreseen. That's simply because he's able to do that. With regard to the setting up of the commissions, because we know when we'll receive the information, we will prepare the groundwork for those commissions to be established sooner than we did so that they can kick into action. It's that kind of tightening that we did. But there is effectively no money involved. As I say, it may cost a little bit less because if the commissions don't exist as long, we'll pay less for the rent.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just one follow-up question to that. We all know that elections are often called in May and June. We never know, of course, because the government gets the call on that. Is there any chance it could be earlier, such as a couple of months? A couple of months could make quite a difference. There's often the call for a June election. There's the fall election and then there's the June election. If this scenario were to be bumped up six weeks, it might in fact catch the next election.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: What I've given you is as tight as we can make it in terms of the legislation as it exists at the present time. Therefore, the corollary to my answer is that if it were to occur sooner, then there would have to be a change to the legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to cut down timeframes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm pleased you've done this. I think we're all appreciative of that. I think those of us who have fast-growing ridings will appreciate the new boundaries. If it works out, I'll put the plea in to the Prime Minister to make sure it happens on course.

The Chair: If I could just bootleg on Mr. Strahl's question, we talked about speeding up the process. Is there any contingency, hypothetically or practically speaking, that you're aware of that would or could extend the timeframe? Is there anything procedurally or practically that could extend the timeframe?

• 1135

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: What would extend it is if a commission asked for an extension in time to perform its duties that did not occur the last time and if this committee asked for an extension in time to perform its duty of providing comments on the report when it comes back from the commissions. Those are the variables that can have an impact, which are legal. I've given you the best-case scenario assuming that nothing of that ilk occurs. That's what those conditions are on page 2 of my letter.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

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

Mr. Kingsley, thank you once again for coming here today with members of your staff. Your presentations are always very relevant and interesting. I must say, not that I was pleasantly surprised, but that I really liked today's presentation, because it responded very positively to several criticisms that had been made after the November 2000 general election.

Let me tell you that when your report on the elections came out, some colleagues shared some concerns with me regarding this report: they said that members who had been elected as well as candidates who had not been elected had all had lived through difficult times during that election. On reading this report we feel that the chief returning officer is rather enthusiastic as he seems to have paid little attention to the difficulties that existed.

When we re-read this report carefully, we see that specific emphasis was put on things that worked well, but that the more negative aspects were not mentioned. I think that this was clearly shown today. You have taken or you intend to take strong administrative measures to correct a certain number of things that happened, and I congratulate you for that. I am eagerly awaiting the report that you will produce this autumn where you will propose amendments to the act to correct the errors that happened during the last election. Going by the administrative measures that you seem to be taking to correct known problems, I can imagine that your legislative propositions will be of the same nature and equally interesting.

Having said that, let me refer you to page 4 of the english version of your presentation where you say:

The Commissioner of Canada Elections will continue to investigate allegations of contraventions to the Canada Elections Act and to prosecute when warranted.

Let me ask you two questions about this. In the light of previous experience, how much time does the Commissioner of Canada Elections take on the average to respond to a complaint, to carry out an investigation and, when warranted, to prosecute? And here is a corollary to this question; how much does this kind of operation costs? As I am asking this question about what happened in the past, in the light of the number of complaints that came in this year, what would be the anticipated cost for investigating the complaints made during the last election, as I presume that there are more complaints than during previous elections? Thus, how much do you think the complaints received during the last general election would cost?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: For the 2000-2001 fiscal year, which just ended, $422,000 were spent by the commissioner. This year, we anticipate spending $1.2 million for work directly related to the commissioner's mandate.

Regarding the average time, I would like to come back to you on this because I do not have any figure in mind. I do not think that we have an immediate answer to this question, or to the question about the average cost of an investigation. Thus, Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to you in writing with a more complete answer.

• 1140

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At this stage, can we tell whether the number of complaints about the last election is substantially greater that the number of complaints about the previous election in 1997 and whether the number of investigations and prosecutions is substantially greater than for the 1997 election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: According to the reports that I have received up to now, it seems to me that the number of complaints is slightly larger than usual. Let me remind you that there is an 18-month period following the election, during which people can complain, and which allows people to check the reports from candidates and parties and to lodge complaints. Within that context, there is a slightly higher rate, but it could vary somewhat. When candidates are audited, a certain number of cases are automatically referred to the commissioner. But I could not tell you whether it is substantially larger, at least as far as I can remember.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But it is already larger even before the end of the 18-month period, if I understand. Thus, there could be quite a bit more than in the previous election. Consequently, I think that you adjusted...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The budget?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ... the budget to take this potential increase into account.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Let us remember that this is done under legislative authority. Thus, if the commissioner needs to spend more, he is automatically authorized to do so, and I do not have to come back before the committee. Then, I will be pleased to explain to you how the money was spent. I just wanted to reassure you that the commissioner is not limited in his work by the availability of funds.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But you can well imagine that we are nonetheless interested in what will be spent by the commissioner to do his work after the election.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I can well imagine, and your interest is justified.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In view of this, on page 5, under the heading “Technology and Vote”, you say that “making the vote more accessible is an ongoing pursuit”. Given this, we cannot have any doubts about the sincerity of your commitment to making the vote more accessible. The recommendations you also made in the past and the steps you have taken have shown this very clearly.

With this in mind, I had the opportunity to raise in the House the fact that there seems to be some kind of paradox in Canada: when the vote is made more accessible, there is a parallel movement whereby the participation in the vote seems to decrease. The vote is made more accessible, the possibility for the voters to exercise their right to vote is simplified, but at the same time, participation decreases.

How do you explain this phenomenon? I already had an opportunity to state my views on this. Let me sum it up for you and invite you to comment on my interpretation of the situation: the more we trivialize the electoral exercise, the more citizens will tend to lose interest in it because it will have become an increasingly banal and futile exercise. We must beware of this. Regarding this, as you know, I have very serious reservations regarding the possibility of allowing voters to exercise their franchise at home, in a bar or at work, through e-mail.

I would like you to answer my question and to comment on my interpretation, which is perhaps a mere layman's point of view.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I, too, have noted that extending the right of vote and making its exercise easier has caused an obvious and remarkable decrease in the participation rate. This is a paradox that I have noted and that I share with you.

On the other hand, I cannot say that all the measures that we have taken to make the vote more accessible have trivialized the vote. One of the reasons that might explain a lower participation rate among new voters, as we will refer to them, is the fact that they have never voted before. Thus, as a group...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But this has always existed. There have always been new voters.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Of course, but we should look at the history to see what happened to the participation rate each time more people, more classes and categories of voters were added. We should go back to 1867, when only 11% of the Canadian population was entitled to vote, because you had to be a male landowner over 21 years of age.

• 1145

Each time the right to vote was broadened, new groups came in. Perhaps it takes some time for these groups to participate. But this does not explain everything because the loss of interest is too high to be explained only by this.

Let me finish my answer. Regarding the new measures to facilitate the vote by allowing people to vote on the Internet, I tried to tell you several times—and I hinted at this in my text this morning—, that we are not ready to go that far. Technology does not yet allow us to go that far. We are told that Germany is moving towards a system of voting on the Internet, but let us not forget that their target date for this is in 2008.

Let me tell you that things will have surely progressed enough for this to be a serious consideration in 2008. Let me also remind you that this will not be a substitute to the current system; it will be an extension of this system. Let me also remind you that before moving forward with this, I will have to come back before your committee to share it with you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And before the Senate committee.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And before the Senate committee. I will have to share all this to see if there is an agreement. When the time comes to introduce these measures, we will want to be sure of the security of the procedure and of the secrecy of the ballot, two essential values that apply to any extension and to further facilitation of the right to vote.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godin

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

Good day.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Godin, good day.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I was not present during your presentation, because I was attending another committee.

I'd like to ask a few questions and make a few proposals. These proposals could be reviewed, as they've already been studied.

For instance, when people move and change their address, they can fill out a Canada Post card. Would it be possible to write on that card that this new address could be sent to Elections Canada? Would that help you?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is an excellent suggestion, that we are currently pursuing. We signed an agreement with Canada Post to study this very matter. So, I will come back to you to give you the results of this study. It is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Secondly, if we came back to the former door- to-door method to do the census, how much would that cost?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In overall figures, it would be $50 million more for the election and $30 million more as a net figure. It costs us $5 million a year to keep the registry up to date. Now 5 x 4, because this is the normal time that elapses between elections—and I do say normal—, gives $20 million. We are currently saving $50 million; thus, the net savings amount to $30 million. If we reverse the figures, it would cost $50 million more to do it. But if it were desirable, the costs would not be a problem. That was the system we had previously, and Canadians were glad to pay.

Let me simply point out that costs are not an impediment to coming back to the door-to-door method. It is up to the committee and the House to decide this.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's all.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, and then Ms. Catterall and Mr. McNally.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, it's nice to have you here. I was here for your presentation, because I believe you are the priority.

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it's a point of privilege.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: On his time, Mr. Chairman, not on my time.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I feel that the meeting I was at, on unemployment insurance, was very important for Yvon Godin.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Accepted.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Conservative Party was not in attendance at that meeting.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I was being facetious, and now we're getting personal. Okay, fine.

The Chair: There's always the price to pay for that, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a couple of questions.

My good friend, the whip from the NDP, started talking about the electoral list, the national register of electors. In my opinion, that is the priority. That is one of the major keystones that we have with respect to the election itself.

• 1150

There are changes, as you're well aware. You know there are issues with that list, and I know you're attempting to certainly bring it up to a useful standard.

You mentioned in your presentation that we have the opportunity to check off the use of our information on the tax forms we fill out. You obviously then get access to that information.

What percentage of the people who file taxes now allow you access to that information?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It has gone up every year, and it's now 85% that I can use. About half say no and half say nothing. The half that says nothing, I cannot use. I can only use those saying “Yes”. So it's 85%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Of taxes filed, 85% of the people who file say yes, you can use that information.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect. And you do, and it's obviously very good.

How many Canadians on the electoral list do we know file taxes? I guess that's where I'm going here. Are you accessing 40% or 50% of Canadians? Do you have any handle on that information?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Over 90% is the answer that was whispered to me by my colleague.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So 90% of Canadians file?

Mr. Rennie Molnar (Director, Register and Geography Directorate, Elections Canada): Ninety percent of the people on the register are linked.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Are linked to the tax system?

Mr. Rennie Molnar: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, so 90% on the list are linked to the tax system.

We are going through the process of a census now.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In some cases, that census will probably be able to provide even better information than what the tax forms can do. Do you have access to the census information, which you can then link to the national registry?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, I do not.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Should you?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's a legal question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That was a tough question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Let the record show that this was a tough question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't mean this as political by any stretch of the imagination.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You are supposed to remain neutral and I see that you are blushing.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is this my time, Mr. Chairman?

We've gone through, or will be going through, a process that's fairly expensive but ultimately is going to have probably the best data collection that we can get as Canadians.

My question was simple: Should you and your office have access to some information, not all of the information that's being gathered from the census, but some information as it relates to the electoral list? That's where I'm heading with this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We are going to get some information. Your previous question related to the total information.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We are going to get some information, because we are going to be carrying out studies based on the results that will have been obtained through the sharing of some, or through StatsCan doing some studies for us, with respect to the accuracy of the list from a statistical point of view, not from the point of view of individuals on the list. So we will have some access.

Your first question was different, and I guess I would answer, now that I've had a chance to think about it, that it would have to be made clear to Canadians that the census information would be used for electoral list purposes if it were to be shared.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is something that cannot be done retroactively.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I appreciate that. That would have to be done prior to....

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one other question, very quickly, if I may. It has to do more with the estimates.

In your presentation, you also talked about a change of 156 term employees, who have now been converted to—it's a term I'm not familiar with—indeterminate status. Can you explain that to me? Obviously it's a change that simply takes the budget for staffing from one pot to another pot, but why indeterminate status? Does that mean they are now actual full-time employees of the government?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer is yes, and you've just defined what an indeterminate employee is. It's indeterminate, contrary to a term employee who comes in and has a stipulated term during which he or she will be employed. When they are indeterminate, they become without term, and therefore they have some benefits accruing to them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you just explain to me why they were taken from term to indeterminate?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They were artificially term in the sense that we needed them permanently, and we were limited through the allocation in the administrative vote to so many positions only. That number has been increased in light of the increased responsibilities of the office for maintenance of the register, for the geographic work that we now do, which is now computerized, and all our other computer applications. This was recognized by the minister of the Treasury Board as justified that these positions become full-term, full-time employees. There's a strong element of justice to the employees there.

• 1155

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Catterall, Mr. McNally, Mr. Macklin.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I first want to use the opportunity of having the floor to report back to the committee on something I undertook to do at the last meeting.

Ms. Gallant raised this issue of the former member of Parliament for her riding having received a Gulf War veteran's medal and not having returned it when requested. I have since spoken to the former member. I understand his office had a call from Ms. Gallant's assistant on April 12. His former assistant in the constituency office returned the call fairly immediately and relayed the message that neither she nor Mr. Clouthier had any recollection. They had a hard time believing they wouldn't recall something as dramatic as a veteran returning his medal to them to be returned to the minister. Mr. Clouthier passed on, through his former assistant, a request to have any correspondence or any more specific details that might assist in the matter. He had not heard again from Ms. Gallant until the issue was raised at committee last week.

At my request, Ms. Gallant has provided me with the name of the gentleman involved, and I shall certainly pursue this. But, as I said, neither Mr. Clouthier nor his former assistant has any recollection whatsoever of what must have been, I think, a fairly dramatic event. So I would invite Ms. Gallant to ask her constituent to be in touch with me in order to provide me with some more information so that I may peruse it further.

I would suggest that in future if she has an issue like this, she may want to raise it with me or with anybody else, and help resolve it, rather than using it to dramatically confront and ask a question that's inappropriate at committee.

The Chair: Okay. We won't force Mr. Kingsley to answer that, but you still have the floor.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I said I would use the opportunity.

The Chair: You still have the floor.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And having the floor, I think he's been questioned excellently by other witnesses at committee, Mr. Chair, so I will allow them to continue.

The Chair: Okay. Colleagues, you'll realize, and the record should show, that this was a matter that came up at our last meeting and the government whip agreed to look into it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So if it comes back to committee, I've done that.

The Chair: Thank you. You have no questions, additionally, for Mr. Kingsley.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, I think the members of the committee are doing an excellent job, and I'm prepared to listen to their questions and Mr. Kingsley's answers.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

First, Mr. McNally, then Mr. Macklin, then Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Kingsley, and all your staff for the great presentation. May I say that your competence and your leadership is inspiring in what you have done.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm very impressed that you have addressed all the questions raised by members previously, with very specific responses, and I think you work often goes unthanked. As committee members, I think we would all want to thank you for your hard work that goes on behind the scenes. We appreciate that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd like to focus just briefly on some of the comments you've made on page 6 having to do with the returning officers and the training of the returning officers.

With regard to many of the comments that have been made by members of the committee previously, it seems that may be one of the lynchpins in fixing up some of the glitches that happen on election day. I mentioned the one particular small incident of scrutineers' tags being removed.

We all have stories about those glitches that go on during election day. I know the position is somewhat tough in that those returning officers are appointed, not particularly selected based on any criteria, so to speak.

In the training, I don't want to be a micro-manager here, but I'm thinking that perhaps one possibility might be to compile—and maybe you've already done this, I don't know—a list of examples of the common glitches that have happened across the country. Perhaps it could be put into a videotape format for the returning officers. Of course, the returning officers are the people who then train their DROs and poll clerks in the riding levels, and all those kinds of things—almost as a preventative measure. I know that's what you're getting at in this particular section.

• 1200

It must be an overwhelming task in terms of implementing that and then having the structural framework and accountability to ensure that those kinds of things actually happen on the ground. I'm wondering if that has been thought of at all.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it is not an overwhelming task. It is a task that we must perform, and we are very sensitized to this. We intend to use videos again. I think we were not as good at using videos the last time as I would have liked, retrospectively, as you look back upon the event. We will intersperse more of those common mistakes so that new returning officers are acquainted with them and can avoid them, and returning officers who have been there for some time will get acquainted with the problems that existed elsewhere.

So it is not micro-managing. It's a fair comment and we will take it to heart. We will also do that with the deputy returning officers, because there are about 150,000 of them. If necessary, I will gladly extend the training time that is required. We are also thinking of actually having a form of exam at the end of the training session, especially for the deputy returning officers. We may have some kind of a pass mark and have sufficient numbers, and allow for the people who will not pass and not retain them.

We have to do something. Even though the vast majority, both returning officers and deputy returning officers, are performing their tasks in what I would call an acceptable professional manner, we still have to improve.

Mr. Grant McNally: I know there were a few returning officers with whom obviously there were problems, and there were some replacements occasionally, as I think you mentioned the last time you were here. What provision or process is there in place if it becomes apparent immediately that there is a confidence issue with a returning officer in a particular riding? What are the particular steps in place? Is there anything that can be done to address that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Something can be done, but it is quite extensive. Because of the fact that the returning officers are appointed by the Governor in Council, they can only be removed by the Governor in Council. I cannot remove them. I don't have that authority. I can only make a recommendation to the minister responsible under the act for electoral matters. The minister then decides whether or not to proceed to the Governor in Council to seek the removal of the returning officer.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I have a couple of questions that relate first to the estimates. You have a category called event delivery, and I just want to get some clarification. It says $579,000 for delivering federal elections and referendums that maintain the integrity of the electoral process. Why is this identified as something separate? What does this $579,000 represent?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: May I ask Janice Vézina to help me out here, sir?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): These are just the areas...event delivery. You'll see event readiness, improvements, public education, information support—that's how we block our planning and our budgets and measure results. So what the event delivery section relates to is the actual conduct and cleanup of elections.

I think you'll see the note there—additional expenditures will be made. That's because this budget was prepared prior to the call of the election. So we'll have additional funds requested in supplementary estimates to address the cleanup of the last election in this fiscal year.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Okay. So that's event delivery. Then the readiness part is shown at $30 million plus. What is that supposed to represent and reflect?

Ms. Janice Vézina: This is our ongoing work where we're reviewing our processes, replacing forms, restocking our warehouse, training returning officers, redeveloping applications, things like that. It's the return to the state of readiness to deliver the next election.

• 1205

Mr. Paul Macklin: So if I look back at your overall picture for the next three years as it's shown in “Agency Planned Spending”, there's a significant drop, obviously, by 50%. You're going to spend this year in the $36 million range, and then $15 million in each of the next two years.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The $15 million represents vote 20, which is what you're considering today in committee. We don't project more than one year out for statutory expenditures. So we don't predict whether there will or will not be an election in the future. What you see are estimates for the statutory authority one year out, and beyond that, what you see is the administrative vote, which is the salaries of the permanent staff. Those reference levels are set by Treasury Board. That's why we can go three years out with those numbers.

Mr. Paul Macklin: So that doesn't reflect the entire budget?

Ms. Janice Vézina: No.

Mr. Paul Macklin: All right.

I have another question, for Mr. Kingsley. With respect to election signs and their prosecution, could you advise us how many of those prosecutions are ongoing? Second, has there been any counsel work done with respect to dealing with this matter of constitutionality, jurisdiction of municipal bylaws versus the federal jurisdiction?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With your permission, I will ask Ms. Davidson to answer. She's director of legal services, chief counsel at Elections Canada.

Ms. Diane Davidson (Director of Legal Services, Chief Counsel, Elections Canada): As to specific numbers of complaints relating to election signs and municipal bylaw prosecutions, we do not have that information available to us. There is a provision in the act that deals with the posting of signs, but because municipalities have jurisdiction over what happens on their territory, the candidates would have to respect the regulations concerning signs in the municipalities where they're running, where they're putting up the signs.

Mr. Paul Macklin: You're suggesting there is no dispute at this point between municipal bylaws and the federal law regarding signs?

Ms. Diane Davidson: The approach we've had, looking at the Canada Elections Act, is that the municipal regulations would apply and would have to be read together with the Canada Elections Act, but there's nothing that would preclude the application of the municipal regulations. There is case law that has established that principle. There are a number of cases—I don't have them here, but I could provide them to you—where the courts have recognized that the municipalities have the authority to regulate in the public interest, in the interests of security. Where the signs, for instance, are posted in places where they would obstruct the visibility of drivers of vehicles, they would have to respect the bylaws of the municipality on that.

Mr. Paul Macklin: What about signage, though, that didn't fall into that category, in other words, outside safety issues?

Ms. Diane Davidson: There is some case law that says that even with respect to what the municipality would consider the general appearance of the municipal—

Mr. Paul Macklin: Grounds?

Ms. Diane Davidson: —grounds, the bylaws would be acceptable. So there has been no real challenge on these other types of signs that would not affect the security of the electorate.

Mr. Paul Macklin: That is the present situation for your operation under the current Canada Elections Act?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Correct.

• 1210

Mr. Paul Macklin: Is there any move afoot, any interest, any complaints to suggest that should be dealt with in a different fashion, that we should be taking a more aggressive stance with respect to the ability of putting up signs on municipal property?

Ms. Diane Davidson: I'm aware that the issue was raised when Bill C-2 was being reviewed by this committee. There was discussion about bringing in some amendments to perhaps strengthen the provision in the Canada Elections Act, but no such amendments were made to the legislation.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Did you have complaints concerning that? Were people upset because municipalities...?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Some members brought this matter to our attention.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Were there a considerable number or very few? Do you have any statistics on that?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It related more to the big cities, I would say. The complaints we received were more from areas like Toronto, Vancouver, the larger cities. That's where the problems arose.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Did you pursue any investigations of these complaints?

Ms. Diane Davidson: There were none that I'm aware of.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Is there any intention of so doing?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When you say complaints, we received complaints concerning the issue. Any complaints referred to the commissioner, he handled with those candidates. They were pursued, but whether or not people were satisfied is another matter, which could be looked at.

Mr. Paul Macklin: There are no results of those available publicly?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will look into advising the committee in writing about the findings.

Mr. Paul Macklin: All right.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When I next write, as there were other questions raised, we will deal with that matter in the letter, sir. That will also include an answer to your previous question about the number of cases.

Mr. Paul Macklin: With respect to the redistribution work you do, is it simply that you look at, for example, the results of the census, then go forward with that and try to bring forward recommendations on redistribution? If so, what criteria do you use in that process?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The formula is applied by me to determine how many seats there will be in each province, based on the population quotient. Each province then has a commission established, which is independent of the Chief Electoral Officer and independent of Parliament. Each commission obtains the statistics concerning where the population is and what the total numbers are for the province through my office from the chief statistician.

Those commissions are usually headed up by a judge appointed on the recommendation of the chief justice of the province. There are two other commissioners, who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, for each of the provinces, for each of those ten commissions. Those commissions then use the facilities and the staff that I make available to them. My responsibility is to tax their accounts, in other words, to pay the bills to sustain their efforts.

They then review the statistics and look at the factors under the statute. I'd have to refresh my memory as to what they are, but there is something about economic areas and where the boundaries were previously. They have to take those into account as well, and there may be others that are escaping me. Then they make a preliminary allocation, which is published in the newspapers. They ask people if they wish to make representations—associations, groups, individual citizens, politicians. They make those presentations publicly. After that they come out—I may be wrong about one or two things, but I think I have the gist here—with what they consider to be the scenario they prefer. They table that here, through my office. Then you here get an opportunity to comment on that. Those comments are sent back to them. Then they make a final determination. That's how commissions perform their work.

• 1215

In terms of the actual criteria, they are a community of interest, a community of identity, the historical pattern of an electoral district, maintaining a manageable geographic size in sparsely populated rural or northern regions of the province. These seem to be the indicators that have been flagged to the clerk.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. McGuire, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Godin.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for missing most of the meeting. I was with Yvon writing a very important report.

This question may have come up earlier. It's to do with the voters list. I spend election day travelling from poll to poll, as do other candidates in my province of P.E.I, and there were very few polls where there weren't problems with the voters list—major complaints. There were veterans coming in, seeing their name not on the list and leaving, and with the appropriate comments as they left.

This was shortly after there was a municipal election where they had voted, or a provincial election a few months before where they had voted, and then they come to a national election and their name is not on the list. It was pretty hard to explain, or pretty hard for anybody in Elections Canada to explain, why their name wasn't on the list.

It was a major problem. I'm not sure if you addressed this earlier, Mr. Chairman, or not, but I see you want to do some post-electoral evaluations and research into voter participation in cooperation with academics. Maybe we should ask the people who never voted why they didn't vote. I know there were a lot of people who showed up at voting stations and left. They refused to take the appropriate measures to get their names on the list. They were steamed that they had voted previously, sometimes just a few weeks previously in a municipal election, and were unable to vote in the national election.

I've been waiting a long time to get that off my chest. But it's true, this happened at almost every poll in the riding, and it's an area where they usually have 85% turnout, and I think we dropped below 70% in this past election.

I think the names not being on the list wasn't the only reason, but that was one of the problems with the low voter turnout. People did show up and didn't vote.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We have addressed, on previous occasions, a number of the issues you've raised.

One of the issues was how quickly we could capture information about moves when we rely on provincial sources, and obviously those sources are drivers' licences, principally for moves, as well as the income tax system. So there's a time lag with respect to moves, and what we're striving to achieve.... Some people have moved, they've changed their addresses, and they think it's all being done automatically. But we may not even have been notified because of the way the data comes in. They don't send in to us, each day, the changes. We get updates every three months from provincial sources and we get updates from Revenue twice a year.

Mr. Joe McGuire: But, sir, in this case, there were hundreds of people missing from almost every poll, and this was going on during the whole campaign. There were literally hundreds of people missing from the list, and Elections Canada didn't seem to be able to go to the provincial list to cross-reference, or to the municipal list to cross-reference. They would have saved everybody a lot of agony and time.... It seemed that they weren't allowed to cross-reference the national list to the provincial list or the municipal list. It would have saved all kinds of heartache if they were able to make that adjustment and compare the two lists.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Sir, I was about to explain we are ready, willing, and able to take over any provincial list, any municipal list, and update our list with it, but it must be in electronic format so that we're able to do it.

We've looked into this with P.E.I.

A voice: Date of birth.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to the process, we have to have a date of birth, as was mentioned to me, in order to be able to update it with automated systems. We don't have any other identifier relating only the name.

But I would like to sit down with you and review this. When you say there were hundreds of names missing from each poll, I need to get to the bottom of this. I would like to get together with you and do that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Sure.

• 1220

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But we are going to pursue, as we do with all provinces, how we can exchange information and update our lists with the provincial results or, if possible, with the municipalities. But that's more difficult. But in a place like P.E.I., it may well be possible.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Before I recognize the next member, I wanted to bring to your attention a suggestion for our meeting on Tuesday, May 29. We haven't had a steering committee meeting, but that particular meeting date is unoccupied. So I thought we could consider the issue of electronic voting again—and perhaps we'll do some collaboration before the meeting with Monsieur Bergeron—as well as striking a subcommittee to deal with the implementation of the 19th report on televised committees. We may be in a position where we have to deal with the executive of this committee, the vice-chair positions or something; that may come up too. If there is no objection, that's what we'll have on the agenda.

The meeting following that will be Minister Gagliano, and former Speaker Fraser, on the renovations to Parliament Hill.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What day is that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: That's Thursday, May 31. This is for the week when Parliament resumes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Our steering committee is working so well.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Now I'll recognize Mr. Jordan and Mr. Godin.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would suggest any meeting on electronic voting without Carolyn Parrish is not a meeting about electronic voting, so make sure she's at it.

I have a question for Mr. Kingsley. Ontario went through a process where the provincial electoral boundaries were aligned identically to the federal electoral boundaries. I think it was the proper thing to do. But what we have now is a bit of an anomaly in the sense that federal returning officers make about 40% less than provincial returning officers do. I'm wondering if I have my facts right on that. If I do, is there any plan to address it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to 40%—I'm not aware of what the difference is. I do know there is a difference, and I do know we pay less at the federal level than they do at the provincial level. There are reasons why this is the case. For instance, we have established a rate that applies throughout the country. But we will be reviewing that rate, and it is my intention not to wait until the next federal general election to come back, in case there are by-elections, to see what can be done. It could introduce a very interesting notion about regional rates, but I don't know how acceptable that would be, because we try to establish a national rate for all electoral workers.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Are you aware of similar discrepancies in other provinces?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'm not aware that there are major discrepancies with other provinces, but there may be, and we'll look into that as well.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin, and Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

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

First, let me simply add that I would not agree to different salaries depending on the region where you live in the country. The responsibilities are the same from Newfoundland to Vancouver. On any given day, the mandate and the responsibilities are the same and the salary goes with the mandate. I just want to make sure to add my own voice to that of others who think the same way. I want you to know my opinion on that point.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think that the message is very clear.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why are there some places where it is [Editor's note: inaudible] more than in other places?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm not finished.

The Chair: I thought that was just—

Mr. Yvon Godin: That was just a reflection to Mr. Jordan. I didn't know his question before.

[Translation]

Another thing is that given your responsibilities, could you recommend that elections take place on a fixed date? Many organizations have a fixed date: for instance: every three years, in the fall or in the spring, but on a fixed date. In this way, the planning and the training of personnel would cost much less to our country, and I think that everyone would have a better opportunity to get organized. Have you already thought of making such recommendations, and does your mandate allow you to do that?

• 1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Frankly, I would not make such a recommendation. Not because I am for or against, but I would not make that kind of recommendation.

Mr. Yvon Godin: All right. Given that you are against it, let me stop there.

[English]

The Chair: Actually, Mr. Godin, it's part of your job to make that recommendation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will respond very briefly to Mr. Macklin's intervention first, and then to Mr. Jordan's intervention.

For Mr. Macklin's benefit, let me simply say that when, as Ms. Davidson rightfully emphasized, we studied this issue in this committee, when we studied Bill C-2, we quite simply took note of the fact that Canada is a federation and that this entails the sharing of powers among various levels of government, and that we must respect this sharing of powers and by the same token, respect the powers of the municipalities. This is a bit of background to explain the decision to not amend the Canada Elections Act, and I would be equally eager not to amend the Elections Act in the way that you just suggested, for the one simple reason that we effectively need to respect the various levels of government.

Regarding Mr. Jordan's question, it raises another supplementary question which might help us to explain the Ontario situation. Mr. Kingsley, do you know whether the returning officers in Ontario are appointed by the Governor in Council or by a system that invites candidates and independent review?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Basically, if I remember correctly, they are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Also in Ontario.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are provinces other than Quebec where they are appointed by the chief electoral officer. I think that it is the case in Manitoba, but I will have to verify that. I think that it is so in Manitoba. There might be another one. Let me answer that when I send you my letter, to be more accurate. All right?

Further, there is a site that we established regarding the chief returning officers of different jurisdictions in Canada. There is a site that we set up where you can compare the main elements of each legislation. I will give you the Web site reference. Perhaps it is our own site, with a specific address. I will also give you that information when I get in touch with you. This might help and your personnel when you do your independent research.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll hear a very brief comment from Mr. Borotsik, and then we'll go to the motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I realize and appreciate your reluctance on recommendations, with respect to set election dates. Perhaps you could, however, stop referring to the natural term as being four years. It seems the natural term is about three and a half years now.

On election boundaries, you say that the process will start the middle of March 2002. Just very briefly, is there some reason why it can't start prior to March 2002?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The processing of the data by the Chief Statistician takes that much time, and that is the earliest. In previous exercises, it was later than that. But it is a massive exercise that he has to undertake. He also wants to ensure the accuracy of what he says.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can he use the census data to help him at his job, in trying to define what the population is and where the growth is?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We use that very same data. When the commissions are established, we send the latest up-to-date information from StatsCan, so they can do their work with the latest population numbers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And the earliest you can get at this is March 2002?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: March 12, 2002.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, boy, we're really specific aren't we?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Oh, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we have March 12 to start the process, but you won't give us set election dates as a recommendation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have natural tendencies.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: The world is a very complex place. Thank you.

Colleagues, I'm advised by Mr. Robertson that the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business will have a substantial report, in all likelihood, to make to this committee on Tuesday, May 29, in addition to the other items I mentioned.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I thought you were about to announce another decision from the steering committee.

The Chair: I have a motion. It's moved by Mr. Richardson.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Chief Electoral Officer

Vote 20—Program expenditures ...... $11,765,000

(Vote 20 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I report vote 20 to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I want to thank Mr. Kingsley, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, and his very professional staff for being here today. We've covered a lot of issues.

• 1230

Thank you for your continuing prompt response to the questions and concerns of members on the committee and the House.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you as well, and I thank my staff as well, sir. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're adjourned.