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, December 6, 2001

• 1135

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for being here.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), we are considering the electoral boundaries readjustment process in Canada.

Secondly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), we will be considering the issue of householders sent during an election campaign.

We have three witnesses before us today: Mr. Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Ms. Davidson, Chief Legal Officer, and Mr. Carol Lesage, Acting Director of Communications. Welcome to the committee. Thank you very much, once again, for appearing here. We are very pleased to see you.

On that, I believe that we will go ahead. I think that you would like to first give a presentation. You have the floor.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I am pleased to be here once again. I would add that Mr. Lesage is also the director of parliamentary representation and it is in that capacity that he is here with me today. That is the first item on the agenda.

This morning I provided the standing committee with answers to the questions that were raised by members of the committee when I last appeared. That document has been distributed. I also intend to adapt the Canada Elections Act for referendum purposes, since there have not been any comments from the committee since my last appearance here.

I have summarized to some extent the remarks that I intended to make.

[English]

because of the arrangement I had made with the chair, who mentioned to me that my previous presentation would be recirculated to you. So I will not go over that terrain; I will only deal with a few changes.

The Chair: Does everybody have that?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: During my last appearance before the committee, on October 30th, 2001, I took the opportunity to update you on the readjustment of the federal electoral boundaries scheduled to begin on March 12th, 2002.

[English]

At the time of my last appearance, only the chair for the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission of Manitoba had been appointed. Since then, chairs have been appointed for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, and I have been advised by the chief justices in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, and British Columbia that the appointments are forthcoming, probably by mid-December, for their provinces. The only jurisdiction I have yet to hear from is Alberta, from the chief justice. I have not heard from the Speaker about his progress in nominations.

At my last appearance I mentioned that the preparation had begun to bring commission members and the commission's secretaries to a three-day conference here in Ottawa. The conference will be held from March 13 to March 15, 2002, to discuss all aspects of the redistribution process. In particular, in light of the comments that were made to me, I will be inviting members of academia to address the concept of community of interest, as well as a few other topics.

The discussion of the topic of community of interest seems to be of particular interest to members of Parliament, and that is scheduled for the whole of the afternoon of Thursday, March 14, during that three-day conference.

I would like to invite the members of this committee who are interested to attend that afternoon session. I will provide you with the opportunity to address the members of the commissions and to participate in the discussion on the concept, because it is one that is of keen interest to you.

That's all I wanted to add because that's all that has changed since the last meeting. So we're here to answer your questions.

The Chair: Colleagues, we can deal briefly with this topic, and then there's the matter of the householders, for which Mr. Kingsley has a short presentation. Then we'll move to other items.

Is there anything on this topic?

Michel Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): No.

The Chair: Okay, I'm sorry.

Pierre Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): With respect to the timetable, what do you have in mind as a model for the public meetings? Are you going to travel? Will these meetings be held in a number of different places?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to the commissions' public meetings, the commissions will publicize the fact that they exist and they will ask people, once their proposal is formulated, who is interested in being heard or who would like to be heard.

On the basis of the interest expressed, the commission will travel around the province in order to fulfil the requirement of hearing from the public and anyone else who wants to be heard. It will obviously be a function of the need that is expressed, and if people cannot be accommodated exactly where they live, we will be encouraging the commissions to ensure that those people can travel without difficulty.

• 1140

Mr. Pierre Brien: One might think that the commission could travel and go to any place where there is the least issue.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. One might well think that since that is their purpose.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think that it is worth keeping in mind that during the last readjustment process, which took place in 1995, there was a bill that had sort of interrupted, in the public's mind, the fact that the process was going ahead. This time, it seems unlikely that that will happen. So we will be able to put a lot more emphasis on that and do more publicity.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm probably not very clear on this. I missed the opportunity to hear that the community of interest will be heard by the commission on March 13 or March 14. Who will be appearing before the committee to indicate the communities' interest? Will it be some community leaders, officials, or MLAs?

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Do you mean who is going to address the issue of community of interest?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have two types of persons in mind. First are members of academia who have written on the topic. Second are members of Parliament who sit on this committee. So you can help those commissions through your presentations. You tell me if you intend to attend and I will make room for you. Okay?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I want members of academia who are knowledgeable and have written on the matter.

The Chair: On the question of redistribution of ridings, the first criterion is the number. That number varies from province to province. For example, in Ontario it's 100,000, plus or minus 25%, or whatever it is. I understand in the huge ridings and in P.E.I. there are special circumstances. But when do geographical relations or historic ties in a community come into play?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is part of the definition of community of interest. The historical patterns of the riding and the movement of people are important. But the commissions take into account the historical patterns of how the ridings were drawn in the past and how they are drawn at the present time. I can only suspect that, to the extent possible, they will attempt to minimize the amount of change. On the other hand, there are sometimes major changes.

I just want to alert people that, on average, you can expect 90% of the ridings will change. There are only about 30 ridings that did not change at the last redistribution. I have no reason to suspect that will change, in terms of percentages. In terms of the impact of this, 90% of the ridings will probably change in their configurations.

The Chair: Gurmant, is it a direct follow-up?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No. I just want to find out how many new ridings he expects will be created.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't know, sir, because I do not have the numbers from the chief statistician. I will not obtain them until March 12. I'm not going to work on estimates because I'm anticipating that question. I don't want to start putting expectations out there.

The Chair: Good point.

Carolyn Parrish, and then Dick Harris.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): As you are probably more aware than anybody else, the Province of Ontario has matched our riding boundaries, so you're going to have another element there that will be asking for some significant input into this, which will be the provincial members of Parliament.

When they decided to go to our boundaries, they just accepted them as they were. Given that we're going into this process, you have a very dynamic group of people who will want to have a lot of input at this level. Are you going to propose to accommodate that, or are you going to change the process for Ontario?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The process will not be changed for Ontario, and the decision will be left up to the commission for Ontario whom it will hear. But it must be remembered that they attempt to hear everyone who wants to be heard. If that includes members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, that will occur.

I want this committee to know that I am keeping the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario fully abreast of all developments and all the material you receive, for example. It is up to him to alert members of the Legislative Assembly, as he wishes, of the process.

• 1145

The Chair: We have Dick Harris, and then I would suggest we go on to the next topic. We can always come back to this following the next discussion.

Dick Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): When do you estimate there will be a list of the ridings that could be affected by change, or is there one in preparation now?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Based on our calendar, if it's respected, the commissions will be making their proposals to the public between July and October 2002.

It must be remembered that the Speaker has until May to make his appointments, if he so wishes. What I've written to him is that if he can make them for March 12, as the chief justices are making their appointments, those two months will be saved and we'll be able to respect that calendar we have provided you.

The Chair: I have Lorne Nystrom. Be brief, Lorne, if you could. We are going to return to it, but there's another presentation.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Are you going to be giving advice for the boundaries commissions in terms of Saskatchewan, which is quite unique?

We have 14 ridings, and eight of them are combinations of rural and urban. That's the only part of the country where there's a preponderance of rural and urban. Mine, for example, is half in the city and half out, and every other riding in Regina is similar in terms of the breakdown. One is one-third to two-thirds, and one is three-quarters to one-quarter. Saskatoon is the same.

There have been some people expressing concern that they'd sooner have them represent more of the communities—more of just a rural riding or of just an urban riding. We are really unique in the country in terms of having, as I say, eight of the 14 seats as rural-urban combinations.

Do you have any comments or any reflection on that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: A lot of people have asked me to raise that at the appropriate time, and I think this is probably the appropriate time.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think it's important for the committee to know that the Chief Electoral Officer provides experts in cartography and demographics to the commissions, but the Chief Electoral Officer does not provide any advice to the commissions on how the boundaries should be drawn geographically. They may ask that of the staff, but the staff do not consult with me.

My only input to the commissions will be at the time of the conference. If this is an important matter that you wish to raise, I would urge you to come to the commission conference and explain this point of view to them, because the ones from Saskatchewan will be there as well.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm not trying to draw boundaries in terms of this town and that town.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, no.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: But there are a lot of people in Saskatchewan who feel the rural areas are really underrepresented. Every one of those eight ridings has an urban majority, and in the minds of a lot of people you diminish the importance of rural Saskatchewan. It is literally the only province in the country where that occurs.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I mentioned, I've indicated where my role was going to be in this respect. I think it's important that members of Parliament have the opportunity to make the presentations public, but the members of this committee also have the opportunity now to come and make the pitch personally at that conference.

I think those opportunities are as ideal as they can be.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Okay, I appreciate that.

The Chair: Even though I do have other colleagues, could we go on? The matter of householders was referred to this committee, so I think we can hear that presentation, and then we'll go back to questions on this.

Dick.

Mr. Richard Harris: I just want to respond quickly to a point Mr. Nystrom made. Making an assertion that rural Saskatchewan ridings are underrepresented is a matter for debate, and we have it on good report that rural Saskatchewan is well represented.

Thank you.

The Chair: Could we move on, colleagues?

Mr. Kingsley, if you would proceed.... You understand my point. Our meeting is a bit unusual already because of the vote, so if we could have your presentation on this other matter, I will take questions on the riding boundaries, the householders, and other topics after.

Mr. Kingsley.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment should not take any more than five minutes.

It is my understanding that the Board of Internal Economy has already given you a copy of the relevant correspondence, and that that correspondence has been distributed here. You will see that there were exchanges between officials of the House of Commons and my office beginning in May 2000. Officials from my office expressed their concern at the time that the practice of reviewing the householders was problematic and should be reconsidered.

• 1150

Since I took on the responsibilities of Chief Electoral Officer my office has had to debate the issue of whether or not these mailings constitute an election expense, in whole or in part, under the Canada Elections Act on the eve of every general election. Until the 2000 general election, a case-by-case study was done of the householders in response to the various requests received for reviews. I must say that I never felt comfortable with this practice. Members of my staff are not in a position to determine, simply by reading a given householder, whether or not it constitutes an election expense, as it is impossible for them to be acquainted with all the campaign issues at the local level. I had the opportunity to see that for myself recently when I visited ridings. Only the candidate and his or her official agent are in a position to determine if it is an election expense during an election period, under the act.

In May 2000, a new reality emerged when Bill C-2 received royal assent. This new reality added to my discomfort with the customary practice at the time. Indeed, subsection 350(2) of the Canada Elections Act stipulates that:

Not more than [...] shall be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district,

[English]

especially by “naming them”, showing a photograph of them, “identifying them by” mentioning their “political affiliations”, or by “taking a position on an issue with which they are particularly” identified.

While the act does not define to the same extent what constitutes an advertising expense by a candidate, it is reasonable to assume that the same criteria could apply, by analogy, in a court of law.

Before changing the case-by-case practice, I sent the Speaker of the House of Commons a letter on August 15, 2000, inviting him in his capacity as chair of the Board of Internal Economy to submit this issue to the board for examination. I also met with the Speaker personally at that time. In this letter, I drew the Speaker's attention to the reasons why I believed this issue had to be examined in a new light. This letter has been shared with you.

I indicated that the practice at that time could give rise to a perceived unfairness. It should also be remembered that despite the advice that may be given—and that's all it is, advice given by my office—the commissioner of Canada Elections can conduct an investigation following a complaint to determine whether the election expenses were reported or not by a candidate as they pertained to householders.

It was in this context and out of a desire to be fair to all candidates that I came to the conclusion that for the general election that was to ensue, all householders during an election period would be vulnerable to be considered an election expense within the scope of the Canada Elections Act. That was not new. The only exception was that householders that were already in the mail at the time or before the writs were issued, and beyond the control of the incumbent MP...no part of it would be considered an election expense, even if it reached the electorate after the writs had been dropped.

Thank you.

The Chair: Before I recognize Pierre Brien, could I ask a question about the timing of the thing? How soon, before or after the writ was issued, were changes made operationally?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The letter was sent to the Speaker on October 19 informing him of the change and the writs were dropped on October 22.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I received the letter dated October 12 from the Speaker in my office on October 18. It was sent by regular mail, obviously. I simply had to react because the agreement had been that we would attempt to change the procedure.

The Chair: I don't like to interfere with the debate. I just wanted to.... Debate's good for me.

Pierre Brien, and then Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to bring up an aspect that seems problematic to me for opposition members in particular, and this is the fact that, even if it is a somewhat open secret, the government controls the election date. So members of the governing party could arrange to send out a householder that would arrive just before the deadline, and by the time we were aware of what was happening, we would not be able to do the same thing.

• 1155

In that way, members on the government side would be able to comply with what you are saying because their householder would arrive just before the election was called or because it would be out of their hands when the election was called, and that would give them an advantage over opposition members. We have a problem with that. I do not know how you see it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I do not have to take a stand on that. It seems obvious to me and that it is a reasonable perception from the opposition standpoint.

It should be kept in mind that the only practice that has been changed is that my office will no longer give advance notice concerning which parts of a householder could be considered to be election expenses and which could not. That is all that I have changed by my decision. Nothing else has changed. You were still entitled to send out householders, but it was up to each member of Parliament, rather than my office, to decide what could be considered an election expense.

I have even advised the Speaker of the House that it was important to indicate to members that if part of their householder was an election expense, the member would have to report that the House of Commons had contributed to the election campaign. That is all that I wanted to do by my decision. Finally, I was saying that I can no longer give advance notice because of the circumstances that I have described to you and the factors that I indicated. That is all that has changed. You could still send the householder before the writ was dropped, and a number of MPs did so.

The Chair: Are you all right with that?

Mr. Pierre Brien: That does not solve my problem. I understand that you are saying that the responsibility rests elsewhere, finally. You are placing the responsibility on the candidate and on the official agent for compliance with the act. That is where the responsibility lies, and you are telling us that we have to decide amongst ourselves what the rules should be.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: What I am saying is that if a householder becomes an election expense, you must treat it like all other election expenses. That is all I am saying. And my office will no longer give advance notice. That is all.

As to whether or not they should be sent out, and so on, it is up to each member to decide or up to the Board of Internal Economy, which represents all members, to decide when householders can be sent out and at what point they are no longer allowed.

Mr. Pierre Brien: My other question is as follows. Are the rules for determining what becomes an election expense sufficiently clear right now to be able to tell whether a document like this will be included or not? Do you feel that the Elections Act is clear enough at the moment to enable us to determine if these householders constitute an election expense?

[English]

The Chair: Are the rules clear enough for a non-professional to determine whether this type of thing is an election expense? It seems to me that if your office is not involved.... The people who work with us in campaigns are amateurs, and in the sense of this legislation we are amateurs. Could you think about that?

[Translation]

You may answer in French.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I believe that the rules are sufficiently clear, but there is no doubt that it is still a problem for candidates who have been members of Parliament, since there seem to be problems with interpreting the act. That is clear. I think that that is the source of the discomfort being expressed today.

It is an expense like any other. It is like advertising spending. The difficulty comes from the fact that when there is a newspaper advertisement, people know very well that it is an election expense because that is the purpose of the ad. The problem arises with householders, since I can assure you that, even if you think that it is not an election expense, your opponent, the other candidate, will automatically deem it an election expense. The other candidate will lay a complaint with the Commissioner of Elections. There are complaints to that effect, and there have been newspaper articles on that practice. It seems to me that people are not comfortable with this issue, and that is what I was trying to resolve with the Speaker of the House before the election. That was when I received a letter saying that everything had to be stopped and that I should continue to do things the way they had been done before. That put me in a difficult position.

• 1200

[English]

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): I was listening quite carefully, I think, to the translation. I'm not sure you answered the question, because if I understood the question correctly, it basically related to the fact that there could be—the emphasis on “could be”—a potential for a problem in the sense that incumbents who are sitting on the government side could send out a householder immediately prior to an election. This is presuming they were informed an election was coming.

Now, by the time an opposition member knew that an election was immediately in the process—or pending, or whatever you want to call it—there wouldn't be time for them to respond with their householder in their riding in a similar fashion without actually having it as an election expense.

I think that was the thrust of the question. I'm not sure you answered—through you, Mr. Chair. Is it the opinion of the witness that it could be a problem in that sense?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think I answered that it could be a problem in that sense. The perception is that if you're on the opposition benches, it is a problem.

Mr. Jay Hill: Has there been any monitoring, for example, to see if immediately prior to the last election—just to use that one as an example—there was an increase in householders being sent out immediately prior to the election? If so, was it more so from government members, or was it pretty equal between opposition and government? I just wonder if there's been any research or data compiled on that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I did not compile any such information, but it may be possible to obtain it through the House of Commons people.

Mr. Jay Hill: Second, is there any monitoring done of government departments themselves? As you noted during your remarks, a government department could send out a flurry, if you will, of things just prior to an election, things the opposition might believe are nothing short of propaganda at taxpayers' expense. That wouldn't be an election expense, and the opposition wouldn't have that advantage. To your knowledge, has there ever been any monitoring of that to see if there's an increase in expenditures, in advertising about all the good deeds the government is doing, just prior to an election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have not had anyone monitor that per se. One can have a conclusion about that, but we do keep tabs once the writ is dropped.

Mr. Jay Hill: On government departments?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: On any government advertising. So do other Canadians, by the way. They write in letters of complaint, which are investigated.

Mr. Jay Hill: Fair enough.

The next question would be, as to expenses for the publication and distribution of a householder in the last election campaign, how many were there that were classed as an expense? What was the average cost that was charged to that particular candidate's election expenses?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will have to look for that information, sir, because I do not have it at my fingertips. We have not monitored this in the reports from the candidates who were MPs. I have not monitored that, but I will be more than happy to look into that and get back to you.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think it would be of interest to know how widespread this is.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will mention one thing to you.

The Chair: If you agree on behalf of the committee and if they could be sent to committee, I would be grateful.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Okay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have one more question. Just so that I'm clear on the process, at what stage does the householder have to be when the writ comes down? You said the writ came down on October 22 for the last election.

Take my example. If I had a householder in the works, at what stage would it have to be for it not to be classed as an expense charged to my election expenses versus being charged? You were saying if it was in the mail. Would that mean that it's already been printed? Would that mean that it's actually gone to Canada Post? Would it mean that it's actually in the riding and out of Ottawa?

• 1205

Ms. Diane Davidson (Chief Legal Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I think you've just answered the question. I think it would have to be in the hands of Canada Post and out of the control of the member. That would be the test.

Mr. Jay Hill: It would have to be out of the control of the House of Commons then.

Ms. Diane Davidson: Out of the control of the House of Commons and in the hands of Canada Post.

The Chair: I do have a long list. It's Stéphane Bergeron next. If we could, let's just move along a bit.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I quite understand the arguments that have been made. To a certain extent, I think that they can be considered legitimate, in the sense that Bill C-2 created additional interpretation problems on your side because there was specific reference to photographs that could be published and that might give an advantage to one candidate or the other. In a case like that, would the House of Commons be considered a third party? That could certainly pose a number of problems.

Secondly, I think that you were quite right to point out that it is only an opinion and that a complaint could still be laid by an opposing candidate, in which case the decision would be up to the Commissioner of Elections.

I had the pleasure at that time of being a member of the Board of Internal Economy. Without revealing any secret information, I must tell you—and you have already alluded to the situation—that because the election was called on October 22nd and it was clear at that point that it would be called within hours, your decision that was communicated to us on October 19th created some amount of commotion, since all members had to be informed very quickly that it would now be up to them to make the determination, whereas they had always relied on your services.

My question is very simple. Given the circumstances, rather than putting us in the position that you did, would it not have been possible, for that particular election, for you to continue to shoulder that responsibility, while being as circumspect as possible in your opinions and indicating that it was definitely the last time that you would be providing that service? I do not challenge the reasons, which may be legitimate, for your decision. But only hours before the election was called, we had to announce to members that they no longer had access to the services they did before. For all practical purposes, they were being asked to become, I would not say experts, but people able to evaluate and decide on certain parameters and possess knowledge that they did not necessarily have. As I have already said, up to that point they had always relied on you.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, you have the floor.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, in 1997, there were 37 requests of that type. In 2000, when I made that decision, my office had received only 25 requests. The impact of the decision was therefore felt by 25 candidates who had been or who would soon be members of Parliament.

It is important to keep in mind what I said earlier. On the 18th, I received a letter signed the 12th informing me of this. The letter was held up somewhere for six days. I felt that I had to react right away. I knew, of course, like everyone else did, that it was very probable that the writ would soon be issued. Did I know that it would happen the following Sunday? No, I did not, but I knew that it would very likely happen.

I could have decided to maintain the practice, but I felt that the risk had increased because of the changes to third-party spending resulting from Bill C-2. I preferred not to expose my office to that increased risk. That was the basis of my decision.

Ms. Davidson would like to add something.

• 1210

Ms. Diane Davidson: I would like to specify that all parliamentarians who asked us to review their householder were informed by the Chief Electoral Officer through a letter indicating the criteria that they needed to keep in mind with respect to the householder.

The criteria were the same as those that we presented today and are contained in the new Elections Act, that is, the photograph, the name of the member and his or her political affiliation, which are all aspects of the householder that can be considered election expenses.

I should tell you that that explanation seemed to satisfy the parliamentarians that received it, since we received no calls asking for more explanations. A number of members received that notice.

The Chair: Thank you, Diane.

[English]

Brent St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll take your advice on whether...my question is not really on this topic. May I just lay it out there?

The Chair: Does it have something to do with elections?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, it does.

The Chair: As I said earlier on, I think we're more open now, and I'd be glad to return to the election boundaries thing. I know I left one or two people on the list.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. Mr. Kingsley, thank you for being here with your colleagues.

The question I have relates to a problem any of us who are candidates in large, rural ridings may face, and it essentially has to do with the managing of the cash resources available to the campaign. For example, my agent could be in Sudbury, where he's a professional, and I could be up in Manitouwadge, about 11 hours' drive away. Is there any...? You did mention there may have been some thinking about allowing more flexibility—no less accountability, but more flexibility—in the way the candidate and the agent partnership needs to work in terms of giving the candidate access to some of the cash resources.

For example, instead of the candidate having to be plunking down his Visa card every time there's a bill to be paid somewhere nine hours' drive away from the agent, the candidate could conceivably have a bank card with access to that account—assuming he gives the slips to the agent so there's full accountability. Maybe it's not a question you can answer today, but just consider the whole notion of accountability but flexibility when it comes to accessing and managing the cash of a campaign, particularly in a large, rural riding.

The Chair: We're in your hands. If in fact you feel it would be better to send a reply to the committee, we'd be glad to do that because you didn't get any notice of this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But I did get notice right before the meeting, which I appreciated.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: And I appreciate that there's no answer available; that's fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will be responding. It may even be possible...as I've just gotten a note that certain expenses can be taken care of that way, but I'll get back to the committee. I will also tell you what might be contemplated if changes were desirable.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Brent, is that okay with you?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, that's fine, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: So it's Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Help me to better understand the situation. The decision to consider part of the householder an election expense, and part of it not, is left to the discretion of the candidate and his or her official agent, is that not right?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Is that discretion based on the act or its interpretation?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is based on the act, in the sense that it is up to the candidate to determine and report election expenses that are incurred in running for office.

Mr. Jacques Saada: My question goes further than that and I am going to tell you why. In normal circumstances there is an expense ceiling—

The Chair: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Absolutely. Of course, Mr. Chairman.

There is a ceiling set for expenses in an election campaign. In good faith, the candidate and his official agent decide, for instance, that 20% of the booklet's cost should be charged to the campaign and the candidate carries out his campaign in good faith, based on this assessment. The opponent does not say a word until the end of the campaign, he waits to see what will happen and, once the money has been spent and the period is over, there can be a lawsuit or a request for investigation. He has exceeded the limit on expenses, which leaves his seat open to challenge. However, at the start, the basic principle was that, in good faith, following criteria that were thought appropriate at the time, it could be charged.

• 1215

I think there is fluctuation in the interpretation, with far too much leeway and very serious potential consequences; this may need some monitoring from above.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I understand the concern you voice very well and I understand that it is well-founded. For the same reason I hesitate to imperil the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. In fact, the commissioner's independence cannot be put at risk.

I think that we should reach an agreement on how to proceed next time. This should be one of our objectives. But I do not think that we can count on the Chief Electoral Officer, through his lawyers, to resume this practice and interpret the act for each and every leaflet. There is too little time, and the decisions are too important, and as you say, they have serious consequences.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, maybe I am wrong, but in my understanding, during an electoral period, especially when there are doubts about interpreting the act, people traditionally get in touch with the Chief Electoral Officer's Office to get advice. Based on this advice, they can make their own internal decisions. But in these conditions, they have nothing to guide themselves by.

A candidate acting in good faith and his official agent, of good faith also—but quite often, of course, not very professional—no longer have anything to guide them in making decisions, in other words, to be guided in interpreting the act with which the Chief Electoral Officer has been entrusted.

I do not understand. There is something missing somewhere.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is something missing inasmuch as the interpretations applied to other subjects are quantitative. You tell us that you send out a certain number of leaflets... I do not mean these, but the publicity that you distribute. You have sent out 1,000 out of 1,500. We can advise on that point: you can charge two-thirds of the cost. But this is a very subjective issue, as you say. And that is the problem with householders. If we have to start taking into account the fact that there is a name, such as yours, on the householder, it may in itself be considered an expense.

I agree with you that this is becoming a problem. And this is why I think we will have to seek some way to reach a different conclusion.

Someone had proposed one. It was suggested that if the householder were to be sent out before issuing the writs, which is beyond the member's control... But this proposal also creates a problem for the opposition because they think that the people in power have an advantage in getting information.

There may be other solutions, but I have found none so far.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, the householders are a problem. They certainly are. Perhaps the practice should be completely banned, but the fact of the matter is that householders are still in play. The problem that has been referred to us is this matter of a decision on them. That is the problem we are facing.

We're not facing the problem of whether there should be householders or there should not; it is how they are handled. I think Jacques' point, the one I tried to make before, is that it is very difficult for people who aren't constantly thinking of this legislation to make decisions on some of these householders. Is it not true that the problem has been compounded by the decision that the determination of which householders should be an election expense and which should not has been brought to the riding and campaign level?

This applies to parties on all sides, because opposition parties send out householders and so do we. In an extreme situation what happens is you spend the limit and then discover that your people made a mistake in saying the householder was not an election expense. Then you are over the limit. The problem we're facing is the matter of how it's decided, I think. I just wonder if you could address that.

• 1220

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is where I would like to be exploring solutions with you. I understand the problem; I just don't have a solution in hand. If I did, I would present it before you and I would say, “What do you think?” I really don't know. All I know is how the law—

The Chair: I don't do this very often, but what is being referred to us is the change in practice.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right.

The Chair: The suggestion is that the change in practice makes it worse. I accept the grey area and all those things you have to deal with. The suggestion is that the change in practice makes the problem worse. That's what I would suggest.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

My problem, sir, is that the problem has been made worse for me through enactment of Bill C-2. Before Bill C-2, I was in a better position. Bill C-2 has made it worse for me. For those reasons, we're in the situation we're in right now.

The Chair: Is the act written for the Chief Electoral Officer or for the candidates in election campaigns, the workers, and their voters?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's written for the electors.

The Chair: I'm arguing this, not personally, but to try.... We have to report, or do something, to follow up on this with the board or with you or with the House. I would suggest that because of that, the new situation is worse. In other words, it's more likely now that there will be problems for the people, including the electors, than was the case before.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: If I may say so, I am convinced that this is not the desired effect. However, the real impact of the decision will allow the riding... This means that in practice, virtually any householder sent during the election campaign, regardless of whether it can be controlled or not, can wholly be considered to be an electoral expense.

Why am I saying this? It is because no one will want to risk getting stuck with this ceiling on expenditures if the photo is used as a standard. A leaflet makes no sense without the member's photo. The member's name must be there. Thus, chances are that an interpretation made after the fact would consider that the entire leaflet can be charged to the campaign and conclude that the ceiling on electoral expenditures has been exceeded. By definition, there is no other choice but to decree that this is all electoral expenditure, if we want to stay on the safe side.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, I think from the point of view of fairness.... I think it was a key point.

If you wish to respond, it's going to be very brief, and then I'm going to move on.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This may be a perception, sir, but all I can say is that I don't have a solution in hand. If there is one that we can work out together, I'm willing to sit down and do that, but I don't have it in my pocket.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

John Richardson, then Carolyn Parrish, Cheryl Gallant, Pierre Brien, and Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'll drop my question.

The Chair: Okay, it's Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Let's just walk through this slowly. Exactly as you pointed out, as soon as we introduced the legislation talking about third-party advertising in naming, in faces, this is what caused the problem.

We're not supposed to know when the election is going to be called, not them and not us. The only guy who knows that is the Prime Minister, technically.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Technically.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Technically, all right.

Second, householders are supposed to be non-partisan. They're supposed to be screened down at printing so that they don't talk about Liberals, they don't talk about Canadian Alliance, they don't talk about anybody. If they break that rule, they shouldn't be going out, period.

Third, if I choose not to have it as an election expense, I can't pull it once it goes through the post office. I can't go to the post office and get it back once they've started delivering it.

Fourth, just as many people get mad at you for putting out a householder in an election as vote for you.

Fifth, I don't stop seeing constituents in my office during an election period. My office is not closed. Part of my job is to have people there dealing with immigration problems in my office all through the election campaign. It's a pain in the ass, so we do it. Part of my job is also to put out a householder of a non-partisan nature, describing government legislation.

• 1225

I think we're getting very confused here. If you're going to cancel one part of my job, which is the householder, then please cancel the other part of my job so I can free up my office staff to go out and work on my campaign.

An hon. member: The salary?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And my salary, take the salary.

I think we're going to illogical lengths on this. If it's non-partisan, as it's supposed to be, if it's already out there and you're doing your job, then it shouldn't be part of the election expense. The word “Liberal” never appears in mine, and I never bash the.... Well, just on my TV shows I bash the opposition, but that's the other point. We've stopped the cable shows.

Mr. Jay Hill: We never brag about what the government does either.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, I don't think I do.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think that's the essence.

An hon. member: Just tell us the facts.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That is the essence.

The Chair: Let's keep somewhere in reality here.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, wait; I'm trying to help here. That's just helpful information. Mr. Kingsley is ten times smarter than I am, and he'll figure out a way around it.

For my next question, I want to go back to the boundaries. By my calculations, if the Prime Minister, whoever he should be, calls an election in three years and seven months, as he's done in the last three elections, it will be run on old boundaries. This comes into effect June 29, 2003. You have a one-year gap before you call the election on the new boundaries. So if it were to be called exactly three years and seven months from the last one, you run it on the old boundaries, correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If the election is called before the end of June 2004, you run it on the old boundaries.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: When the election is completed, despite the fact that some ridings are huge—I have one with 300,000 people in it—then for the next period of three and a half to four years, all those old MPs stay in place, all those old boundaries stay in place for serving the public.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If you're not the one who's running, whoever is the MP will be representing all those people for the ten years until the next redistribution.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's not clear to me.

A voice: Let's put this in writing.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If the redistribution clicks in, four years or....

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'm sorry; you're right. I take that back.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So if there was another one called three years later—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, because the ridings will come into effect immediately after the election.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, good.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The next election will be fought along the new—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You're absolutely right. I correct myself on that.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, that's okay. Thank you.

That's all, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is why I thought it was important to signify the importance of those dates to the committee, to everyone. All Canadians need to know that.

The Chair: Cheryl Gallant and Pierre Brien.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): My question is in regard to the response you gave me based on the last meeting you attended. So it's indirectly related to what we're talking about.

In your response to my question about the potential for political interference, in the case I put before you, you dismissed the notion that the potential even exists, as in your estimation it is the offence, not the accuser, that is most important.

We have already witnessed in this Parliament the reluctance of the commissioner of information and ethics to ask questions and scrutinize certain activities of the Prime Minister. I put the question again. Recognizing that there is a fair degree of latitude for the commissioner to decide which cases he's going to pursue and which cases he's not, after the cutoff line, how do parliamentarians know that we're going to be protected from witch hunts put out through the Prime Minister's office?

The Chair: Cheryl is referring to the replies arising from Mr. Kingsley's last meeting with us, which everyone has. There are replies here for Pierre Brien's questions, as you'll recall, for Jay Hill's, for Carolyn Parrish's, for Jacques Saada's, and for Marlene Catterall's. I'd be grateful, Jacques, if you would draw this to the attention of Marlene, as she's not here today.

We thank you for supplying us with these replies.

Cheryl, go ahead. Are you finished?

Mr. Kingsley.

• 1230

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer lies in the fact that the commissioner must acknowledge all written complaints. He must also determine if he will investigate a particular complaint, based on the reasonableness of what is in the letter of complaint. What matters is the result of the investigation, because it is through the investigation that he will ascertain if there are elements of proof that go beyond what reason requires. But initially he bases it on a judgment of whether or not it is reasonable to even pursue the topic.

I think it's vital for members of Parliament to appreciate that the commissioner has never been, and never will be, motivated by somebody else's political motivation. Of course, whenever there are complaints, the motivations vary all over the place. He just dismisses this out of hand. It does not matter who is complaining. It is the substance of the complaint that matters. That is all.

My job is to make sure that remains that way. If I'm not convinced that it remains that way, I replace the commissioner. He has all of my independence. Only I can fire him. That is the strength of our system. There is no political interference. Any decision to prosecute is taken solely by him on the basis of evidence that has been gathered through the investigation. There is no reference to any attorney general or political authority in the land before that decision is taken.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So when a complaint is received after the deadline, based on the response you gave, I'm beginning to believe that there is really no need for a deadline. Anybody can still launch a complaint, as long as it's within the 18-month period. What then is the impetus for him to go ahead?

Ms. Diane Davidson: Under the act the commissioner has 18 months to prosecute. That's specifically mentioned in section 509. As the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned, he does so based on the evidence. He exercises an independent decision.

I'm wondering what else we could add.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: What about when there is no evidence but just a mere complaint?

Ms. Diane Davidson: It shouldn't be pursued. When there's no evidence, there's nothing to bring before a court of law. How can you prosecute on the basis of no evidence?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Exactly. Thank you.

The Chair: On my list are Pierre Brien, Lorne Nystrom, and Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Let me talk about the technical aspect. And then there will be another matter.

When the cost of a householder is calculated, or when someone has to figure it out, it must be done based on the market value of the service and not on what it costs the House of Commons. Am I right?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, you are right, and it includes the stamp.

Mr. Pierre Brien: It includes the stamp, printing, etc. It is the market value.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The cost of the stamp must be included, even if there is an act stating that the Post Office Act allows for free mail-outs. The market value of the stamp must be determined.

Mr. Pierre Brien: This is meant to ensure that the cost is the same as for a candidate who would have liked to do something similar, but without access to the services provided by the House.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Basically, wouldn't the simplest solution be to leave it up to the House of Commons and not the MP to stop whatever is in progress and can still be stopped on the date the wats are issued? In these conditions, no one would be caught in an unclear situation; however, this still leaves open the problem of unfairness in cases where the election date has been leaked from the government, prompting earlier collective operations. This comes back to an internal economy issue, but this could be solved, for instance, by establishing a public list of householders registered for printing, which would let us see right away that 300 have been registered. In such a case, we would have a fair idea that something is going on.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It would be 160, rather than 300.

Mr. Pierre Brien: It would be 160; you have a point.

Would you be comfortable with such a solution, whereby the House of Commons would put an end to... I imagine it would... and an internal mechanism would be created for this purpose...?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This comes back to the idea I shared with the previous chairman in a letter, namely that this mechanism could be acceptable under the Elections Act so that householders are not counted as electoral expenditures. I had already stated that in writing. But it has to be accepted by the people in this room.

• 1235

Mr. Pierre Brien: Explain this to me. What would be acceptable to have these excluded from the tally?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That a householder beyond the member's control is not counted as an electoral expenditure when it is mailed out.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That would be good.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This was suggested previously, but you were the one to raise the problem of unfairness, and you have just raised it again. You spoke of the potential advantage that could be taken by members sitting on government benches.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Even if this unfairness does not concern you, you are, of course, aware of the fact that this is an internal economy issue, are you not? All right.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I already said that I am inclined to adopt that solution, but I think it would be important for the Board of Internal Economy to agree on a procedure like that one before I am entirely comfortable with something like this.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Perfect.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for Mr. Kingsley.

In terms of your overall report, I want to ask you about some of your interesting comments on extending disclosure rules to leadership campaigns and where you draw the line in terms of the internal affairs of parties. Why not extend the disclosure rules to cover nomination campaigns? We often have nomination campaigns where people spend thousands and thousands of dollars. There probably were some situations where more money was spent on the nomination campaign than on the general election campaign. What are your thoughts about extending the rules to cover that? What about limitations on nomination campaigns, leadership campaigns, and the internal campaigns of parties? Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your wisdom in those areas.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The recommendations I formulated in the report do recommend that there be a limit on nomination campaigns. They recommend that financing sources as well as expenditures for those nomination campaigns be provided for public scrutiny. That is already part of the report, sir.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: What about leadership campaigns in terms of limits?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The recommendation I made did not contain limits for the simple reason, as I explained then, that I did not have sufficient knowledge about how much money was transmitted during those campaigns, and I did not know sufficiently what would be a reasonable amount. In the other places where I did make recommendations on limits, we based it on knowledge we had. But it would be possible for this committee, for example, to call on the political parties to come and testify about how much these campaigns cost and to consider imposing a limit if it wished to. But I'm not in a position to say it should be so much, because I don't know how much they cost.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm curious as to how you would know how much nomination campaigns would cost but not leadership campaigns. Nomination campaigns are much more local, and they tend to be more private. I'm just curious as to how you would have numbers on those, which would give you the research on which to make a recommendation, but not for leadership campaigns, which tend to be much more public and scrutinized by the press.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With regard to the information on nomination campaigns, it has been reported previously, and studies relating to those were done for the royal commission.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

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

To go back to a point that was raised by Mr. Kingsley earlier in response to a question from my colleague Mr. Brien, one of the potential solutions could be that when the householder can be stopped, it could be classified as an expense, but when it is in the process of being distributed by Canada Post, it is impossible to imagine that the candidate, let's say the incumbent MP in our case, can go into Canada Post's piles or bags of mail at the central office here, in Ottawa, and stop something that has already gone out, something that is already being distributed. So what I understood from Mr. Kingsley's suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that the criteria could be to determine whether the candidate was able to stop the distribution.

While we are at it, I have a suggestion for committee members. I would like us to hear from the director of distribution services at the House. I do not know if that is the right service or the right title, but I want the official to explain the householder process for us. The MP's office, his or her assistant in Ottawa, prepares the householder, the blues, or the Velox—call it what you will—and submits it. I would like to know what steps are involved between the time it leaves my office and the time that it arrives in a household in my riding.

• 1240

I would like an explanation of that. I would also like to know what can be stopped and what cannot. I would also like to ask some questions on the costs, on the dollar value of this exercise. I do not know if you think this is a good idea. That was my first comment.

Secondly, the matter will clearly be debated by the Board of Internal Economy. I see that the Director General of Elections has developed a very cautious approach. I understand that as part of the numerous activities that occur once the writ has been dropped he does not want to start asking his legal counsel to render decisions on what electoral expenses are eligible and ineligible. So the Director of Elections is suggesting that the Board of Internal Economy give the House and members some direction.

I will conclude my remarks on this topic by saying that we, the 301 members of the House of Commons, should try and work together to examine this matter from a democratic perspective. We are elected representatives, and when we run again, we want to be re-elected. But lets put ourselves in the shoes of a candidate from a party that is not sitting here, around this table, and who is under the impression that we are using our status as an incumbent MP to gain the upper hand over him or her.

Even if I am more than happy to send out a householder two days before an election is called, I think that in a healthy democracy, this is not the way we should be reasoning... We, the 301 MPs, should not be acting is if we are all part of the same bridge club. We are not a bunch of bridge buddies from a club that favours our re-election. We should have a vision. We should go beyond that and consider democracy first and foremost. Think about the people who are candidates in good faith, who will work to get elected. That is part of democracy.

[English]

The Chair: Michel, could I respond to the first?

Your point is we should find out when it is that it's no longer possible to stop the householder from going out. That is a very significant situation, because at that point the member may have decided it shouldn't go out, but it's simply too late.

We will do that. We will find the official. If necessary, we'll bring him or her here, or perhaps get a statement from him.

Mr. Kingsley, are you okay with that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Oui.

The Chair: Colleagues, I don't want you to leave yet.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: While Mr. Kingsley is here and since you have allowed us to address the issue to some extent, I want to congratulate you on your report. I may not agree 100% with the content, but there is a lot of interesting material. The rest will be a good topic for debate, and that is fine.

If you can, perhaps not right away, I would like you to give me more information on the problem with respect to funds that are held in trust. That way I would not have to add up all of the returns.

You seem to be saying that there is a problem, because the trust accounts help candidates get elected, but we do not know who is contributing to them. Is a lot of money going through these accounts? In light of the returns that you have, is there a lot of money going through these trust accounts? Is it a trend that is on the rise? What is the situation?

[English]

The Chair: What I was going to do is invite Mr. Kingsley for another meeting that would be based on this report, which we've all received, and other topics, perhaps some arising from today.

Pierre, would that be suitable for you?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, but you will understand that I want him to answer that. I will not ask any other questions.

[English]

The Chair: Oui. Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will have to get back to you with a written answer, because as you can understand, I do not have that information at my fingertips.

Mr. Pierre Brien: But you have made a note of the question.

• 1245

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You must bear one thing in mind. I only have access to information about trust accounts that are set up for electoral purposes. I do not have any access to all of the other trust accounts. Nor does the public have access to them. So I do not know how much money there is there, but I will be able to answer your question.

Mr. Pierre Brien: But you do know how much is legally collected for an election.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The amount reported is not that high. But I will get back to you on that.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, before I thank you and your colleagues, I'll go through a few things because they might relate to you.

First of all, I have thanked you for the replies. We appreciate it and we would be grateful for the replies that you've promised today.

Secondly, with respect to this—so you and the others know—my suggestion is, colleagues, that on this matter of the householders specifically, we return to this at another meeting, possibly in camera, when we decide exactly what we'll do. We'll have some additional information on that. You've already heard what I've suggested.

Mr. Kingsley, I hope at some mutually convenient date you will return and we will focus on your report and other topics that are still outstanding.

The other thing, colleagues, is that when there are more of us here, my suggestion would be that the committee in some way be formally represented at the commission conference that Mr. Kingsley has mentioned. That might be the entire committee or it might be some representatives, obviously, because it does seem to me, as chair, that it would be appropriate for the commissioners to realize that we exist and have a part in this matter. We can discuss that also at another meeting.

Tuesday's meeting, colleagues, is on the votable items again, making private members' business items votable, and I think we're all prepared for that.

It's not exactly a trick question but I have one question that ties in the boundaries and the householders. As I understand it, assuming the next election is run under the new regulations, the new boundaries, we retain the existing boundaries until election day. If I have sent out a householder and it's unstoppable, it would go to my present riding, not to my new riding.

Could you give us a rule of thumb on how to calculate that in the election expense?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Not right now.

The Chair: No. Perhaps I could leave that hanging for you. I thought I'd come up with something that linked the two topics.

Colleagues, has anyone else anything to add?

I want to thank Carol Lesage, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and Diane Davidson for once again being here. We do appreciate it and look forward to seeing you again at another meeting.

Colleagues, we're adjourned until Tuesday, the same place, at 11 a.m.