HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Á

1100

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

Á

1110

Á

1115

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

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

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. White (North Vancouver)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Janice Vézina (Senior Director, Elections Financing and Corporate Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada)

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Ted White

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Ted White

Á

1140

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Janice Vézina

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Á

1145

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Á

1150

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Á

1155

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1205

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1210

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Â

1215

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mrs. Gallant

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1220

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Â

1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1230

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Â

1235

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Â

1240

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 063

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): We will now begin our 63rd meeting, The order of the day is the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, vote 30 under Privy Council, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada; and the Chief Electoral Officer's report on plans and priorities.

    Our purpose today is to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff and to see whether vote 30 in the main estimates should carry and be reported to the House of Commons. At the same time, however, we're taking the opportunity to consider the report on plans and priorities.

    Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Vézina, if you don't mind, could you give us a couple of minutes to do some routine business? Would that be okay? All right.

    Colleagues, I want to remind you that on Thursday, which is the last meeting before the break, we're considering Bill S-34, which deals with changes in royal assent. I would like us to deal with that completely in the one meeting, if we can. Then, when we return, if it's okay with you, I would propose that the steering committee meet on the first Tuesday, the reason being that by then we will have the summary of the round table on private members' business, which will be the basis for our reconsideration of those matters. We also will have some sense of where we stand in the security study that we've been doing and some other matters.

    So the steering committee can consider those things and then determine what we do for the rest of the session, except I would suggest that the Thursday after we come back we consider our own experiment on the televising of committees in House.

    As you know, we extended the experiment of televising committees through to June. We have to report back to the House by the end of May--or we said we would. We have new statistics. The new procedures have been used for this committee. So I think it's important, just purely on the basis of time, that we do that.

    On the assumption that this doesn't take a very long time, my suggestion is that towards the end of that meeting we have a little conversation with parliamentarians from Bangladesh, who are interested in the sorts of things we do here in the House of Commons. We have done this before very successfully. My thought is that they would be invited to all or part of that meeting, they would sit and hear us discussing the televising of committees, and we would then have a conversation with them, following up their interests, to complete that Thursday meeting.

    Are you generally comfortable with that? Okay.

    If I could also, before we start--and I do apologize for this, Jean-Pierre--I'd like to report to you on the meeting I had on your behalf with the Senate. I want to do it on the record so that these pieces of information are there, and I'm doing it now because it will be significant to the steering committee when we come back.

    Last Wednesday, which was May 1, on behalf of the committee, I met Senator Jack Austin, the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, which is, generally speaking, our counterpart in the Senate. This was a very useful meeting--as far as I am concerned, anyway--and we had a good exchange of views and concerns.

    The meeting was held at my request--at your request, in actual fact, because you asked me to do it--and more particularly out of interest from what we've been discussing in our steering committee.

    As you will recall, concerns have been expressed about private members' bills coming from the Senate. In addition, during our recent series of meetings on Parliament's security, there was renewed interest in reviewing relations between the House and the Senate, and that has caused some comment, you should know, on the record, in the Senate.

    On the question of private members' bills, I conveyed the concerns that have been expressed, and particularly the perception that, in some cases, the Senate was being used as a way of getting bills in through what has been called the “back door”.

    A number of possible solutions were discussed, including a provision that a bill that was, for all intents and purposes, the same as one disposed of in the same session in either chamber should not be allowed to come to a vote during the remainder of that session. So that idea is out there.

    We also discussed the possibility that in the event that private members' bills from the Senate are to be votable in the House, this could be done at the end of one hour of debate rather than the regular three hours. By the way, that's an opinion; it's a point that feeds into the discussion we had at the round table. In other words, it would be a shorter time.

    In any event, these issues can be considered further by us when we come back to private members' business, as I said, after the break.

    On the question of security, you'll appreciate that this is a sensitive topic in the Senate, and it has been so, if you follow their debates. My main concern was to explore closer cooperation between the two chambers.

    The objective for us all is efficiency and effectiveness. We want to ensure that there are no gaps in our security and no gaps in the Senate's security, that unnecessary duplication is reduced or eliminated, and that everything possible is done to coordinate the array of police and security forces on the Hill. You'll recall our discussion. This is an ongoing thing as far as we're concerned. We haven't reached conclusions on this matter yet. This issue remains outstanding, and we will no doubt be returning to it before the summer adjournment.

    I would point out to you that the Senate is also considering these security matters, and their intention is to have a report by the fall. That might be a useful piece of information for us as we come to the end of considering security on the Hill, because the timing might be useful timing for us also.

    Senator Austin had two issues that he wanted to raise. The first was the desire of the Senate rules committee to revisit the issue of a set of common procedural rules for joint committees. You will recall that we are responsible for all the standing committees of the House of Commons, which is why he's addressing this to us. A considerable amount of work was done on this matter of rules of the joint committees several years ago, spearheaded in the House by Peter Milliken, the current Speaker, when he was chair of this committee. Reports containing a set of rules were tabled in both chambers, but some minor differences between them were never resolved.

    It is my understanding that the procedural staff of the Senate and the House of Commons will be meeting to examine this issue and may make a report to us in the future, just so you know, on this matter of joint committees.

    There's a specific question about the joint committees, as you all know. Senator Austin also raised the question of the continued participation of the Senate in the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. I understand there was a motion in the Senate that a separate Senate committee be established. The Senate rules committee is engaged in the consideration of a report on Senate committees, and this may be one of the recommendations that will go forward to the Senate.

    Again, the future of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages may be something we will have to consider later.

    I'd like to mention two other things that Senator Austin mentioned. One was a small point, I think, but he presented it very seriously, and that was that private members' bills be named instead of numbered. Again, given our discussion, the thought there was that instead of Bill C-441 or whatever, be it the Brown bill or the Boisvert bill or something of that sort. I would leave that in your minds and in the minds of our staffs.

    The other thing was that he mentioned the history of Senate-House conferences--in other words, formal conferences to provide for communication between the Senate and the House of Commons. He mentioned it both in our jurisdiction and in other parliaments. There is a history--in fact, a rather ancient history, in most cases--of such conferences in all bicameral parliaments around the world. Their purpose is for there to be communication between the upper house and the lower house.

    In our Parliament, there have been 13 such conferences since 1906, but none since 1947. In other words, there's been no formal communication. Some of these conferences are very specific. There's an issue or a bill going through and the conference is set up to deal with that. Others are so-called free conferences, which are essentially meetings so that the two houses get to know each other and can resolve differences such as some of the ones I've mentioned here. I would mention that to you particularly in connection with the security matter, which we are continuing to deal with.

Á  (1110)  

    Are there any questions on that? I wanted to do this so that it's in our record.

    Rick Borotsik.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Are you suggesting that we look at the possibility of a conference?

    The Chair: I think we should wait and see, Rick. The Senate will be coming back to us on various points of these issues, but I do think, if I can use this security question as an example, if you look through our record, when I was discussing the existence of the two security operations here in what is arguably the building that is most at risk in the country--which is what the RCMP has essentially said to us--I actually began by saying something like, I don't mind if the Senate runs the entire security operation, but in my view it seems to me there's some advantage to them cooperating, or whatever.

    I put it that way because I understand some of the feelings. Well, it seems to me if, say, once a year there was such a conference, working with the Senate, it might reduce the tension that arises in those cases. But I'm putting it on the record now because we're considering a lot of these things.

    Colleagues, it's my pleasure to introduce to you Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, and Janice Vézina, senior director, elections financing and corporate services, of Elections Canada. They have both appeared before us before. We welcome them.

    Mr. Kingsley, I think you have a statement.

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

    It is a privilege for me to appear before this committee to present the 2002-03 main estimates for my office.

    Before proceeding, and as agreed with you, Mr. Chairman, I should explain that the form you have received dealing with the annual fiscal reports of parties was referred automatically to this committee because of the fact that it was changed as a result of amendments made to the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-2. There are slight modifications in how parties report, and this is all these forms reflect. We have consulted with the different parties who are members of the advisory committee of political parties concerning the form.

    I just thought I would explain why you've received those. There's nothing more to it and nothing less to it than that.

    I will cover the major priorities that will be our specific focus this year. As a matter of fact, I am moulding the estimates as well as the priorities into one presentation here. Afterwards we will be pleased to answer your questions. The “we”, of course, refers to Janice Vézina, as you have introduced her.

    Before getting to the heart of the matter, I should remind you that my office operates on two separate budgetary authorities--vote 30, which is what this is about, and the statutory authority.

    Vote 30, as I was saying, is the component of the budget you're now considering in committee. Essentially it covers the salaries of our permanent employees. That's all it covers. For this fiscal year the budget for vote 30 is $12.2 million.

    The statutory authority covers all other expenses of my office. Our fiscal 2002-03 budget for the statutory authority is $47.5 million. For our total expenditures you add the two.

    The major items in this $47.5 million include $13.5 million for information technology, $8 million for event readiness activities, $5.8 million for redistribution, $4.5 million for the national register of electors, and $3 million for electoral geography.

    The estimates for the statutory authority vary from one fiscal year to the next, since they reflect the particular activities we must carry out under the statutes. For the most part they relate to general elections, byelections--of which there are seven now--or, as is the case we are in at present, the decennial electoral boundaries readjustment process, commonly called “redistribution”.

    I heard the concerns you raised with respect to voter registration, communications with electors, and other systems and procedures when I appeared before this committee on March 1, 2001, following the November 27 general election, and at my subsequent appearances before this committee. Based on your input as well as our extensive post-election evaluations, we set out priorities for the coming year.

    There are three main areas, and I will explain briefly each in turn: voter registration, including improvements to the quality of the lists of electors and enhancements to the revision process during the election period; communicating with electors, including advertising, the enquiries centre, and our website; and supporting the redistribution of federal electoral boundaries.

    In addition to these priority areas, we are also implementing enhancements to many systems and procedures as identified by our various stakeholders, of which members of Parliament are prominent ones.

    All our readiness plans and major improvement initiatives converge on our election readiness date of March 31, 2003. We are now so computerized that we must set these dates and aim to achieve them before we make systems changes on a general scale. That's why that date has been identified by my office as a major convergence date for all the plans I'm going to be talking about.

Á  (1120)  

    Concerning voter registration, you told me that changes were required to improve the quality of the lists and to enhance the revision process. This is especially important for registering first-time voters, primarily youth.

    Several initiatives are under way to improve the list of electors produced from the national register of electors. To improve coverage, especially of youth, we have modified our agreement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to permit adding new electors. Starting this summer we expect to add some 275,000 new electors each year--something that did not take place before--of whom 225,000 are youth, that is to say, mainly new 18-year-olds.

    Preliminary results received from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, based on some 5 million tax filers to date, indicate that the consent rate for this initiative is expected to increase to 85%, which is up from the 84%. At this stage it's going up slowly, but it's way beyond the business case of 70% initially forecast. We will also continue to write to youth identified on driver's licence files but not picked up from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, as well as add youth from provincial registers. These combined initiatives should result in a registration of some 80% of youth right at the start of the election.

    We will continue to work with stakeholders to go even further. For that remaining 20%, we plan to use data from provincial and territorial elections whenever they are available and can be incorporated in our files. We are also working with our advertising firm to develop communications strategies to further increase youth registration.

    We are planning to use information from Statistics Canada's 2001 census to assess the coverage of the national register of electors for various demographic groups, including, and particularly, low-income electors, which you flagged for us before. We are in discussions with StatsCan concerning the best way to achieve this. The results of the assessment will enable us to more effectively select areas for special revision activities. I will share that data, that information, with you when I have it.

    As of March 2002, returning officers have been conducting a review of the address and geography components of the registry. This will ensure that street and place names are spelled correctly in those few places where there are still problems and that electors are in the correct electoral district and polling division. A software application has been provided to returning officers to record changes using the computers we have installed in each of their homes. Changes will be incorporated into the register this summer.

    Returning officers will also revise their polling division boundaries, verify and update their maps, and revise their polling sites. I have directed returning officers to consult members of Parliament as well as political parties and local representatives through their local associations. Provincial chief electoral officers have also responded positively to an invitation to participate in this exercise, most notably in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. So we're doing this jointly with them, especially in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.

    To improve our ability to track elector moves, we are testing Canada Post national change of address data to record address changes. We expect to implement this new update source this summer. That is one further source for improving address changes.

    Our post-election surveys indicated that some 70% of electors support on-line registration using the Internet, provided security concerns can be addressed. We're conducting a feasibility study right now regarding online registration and it's to be completed this summer. I will share the results of that with you as well, and a decision can be made jointly about the usefulness of it.

    We are also continuing to work with our colleagues in the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities to share electoral lists, most notably in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, as well as the city of Winnipeg, where, once again, they will use in Winnipeg the national register of electors as the basis for their voters lists.

    We are continuing to improve the quality of the data in the national geographic database that we are maintaining jointly with Statistics Canada.

Á  (1125)  

This database is comprised of a national road network, with street names and address ranges, and is used for automated mapping to support redistribution and to assign electors to the electoral districts and to the polling divisions. The percentage of electors that we can actually geo-reference--that is to say, assign to a point on a map based on their address--now stands at over 77%. We plan to increase this to between 82% and 86% by December of this year.

[Translation]

    An effective revision process is, of course, essential for successful use of the register and we have initiated several enhancements here. Some of them require legislative change as indicated in the report Modernizing the electoral process.

    Targeted revision is the process whereby we send revising agents to register voters in specific areas such as institutions, college campuses and other areas of high mobility as well as new developments, during elections. We are looking at improving the process by which high-mobility areas are identified using data generated from the register as well as from municipal property assessments of Ontario. This is being tested in the by-election currently underway.

    We will conduct a review of the products and processes by which key registration and voting information is directly transmitted to individual electors, such as the voter information card. The voter information card is a vital tool that brings the election to their attention.

    I am considering what I would call wake-up call measures, which would occur at the beginning of the electoral process and replace the door-to-door campaign that we feel is a wake-up call to the voter. We will see what we can do with the advertising campaigns and other measures.

    Our review will include revisiting the “or occupant” on the voter information card. This matter was a source of concern for us during the last general election. I have also recommended changes to the act to provide the Chief Electoral Officer more flexibility in terms of when and how electors are provided registration and voting information.

    I've also recommended that returning officers be able to accept changes of address from electors who have moved from a different riding. However, this requires a change to the statute in the case of electors who would make these changes by telephone as is done now for intra-riding moves. When the move is from one riding to another, this cannot be done by telephone: proof must be provided.

    We're also making enhancements to the computerized revision system, which is used in each returning office to make changes to the list during the electoral period. This new software will accept, in electronic form from headquarters, last-minute updates received from data suppliers—that would be the provinces—at the start of the event. In addition, the system will process inter-riding moves by removing electors automatically from their old address.

    Finally, we have initiated a project to increase the level of involvement of all stakeholders in voter registration, especially members of Parliament and political parties. For example, when we distributed the list of electors to political parties and members of Parliament on October 15, 2001, as mandated in the act, I asked for feedback regarding any problems or issues with the lists. To date, only three members of Parliament have identified issues primarily related to 911 civic address conversions in New Brunswick. The majority of these conversions were made prior to the 2000 election, but some remain. In one case, we have provided the member with a revised list. In the other two cases, we are working with Canada Post to complete the conversion in time for October 2002, so that will be done before we send you the list again. We will continue to build on the advisory committees already in place—political parties, returning officers—and explore other mechanisms for more direct involvement of parliamentarians in voter registration. I will go back to this later.

    I heard you loud and clear during your discussions of our communications campaign for the last general election.

Á  (1130)  

I want you to know that we are reviewing all materials and media which we traditionally use to reach electors—everything will be under a microscope: householders, the ad campaign, voter information cards and the Internet.

    In addition to upgrading our tool box, we are working with our ad agency to identify and confirm with our various stakeholders, key messages and themes to use in the next advertising campaign which will resonate with our electors. Participating in this exercise, which will begin tomorrow, by the way, will be members of political parties, returning officers, advisory committees, academics and a number of provincial electoral organizations. I will seek participation of members of this committee, at an appropriate time in this review of our advertising process, through the chair.

    We will be ramping up our outreach activities in between campaigns, to reach youth, Canadians with special needs and the Aboriginal and ethnocultural communities. Also in between campaigns, we will be working closely with CCRA to get a higher participation of Canadians who agree to be registered by ticking a special box on their tax forms. I have already mentioned that participation is now at 85%.

    We are re-focusing how we handle the public enquiries. Traditionally, on election day, we receive thousands of telephone calls. At the last general election, 53,000 calls came in on just one day. We will be analyzing public calls to make readily available answers to questions which are most frequently asked. We need to provide Canadians with alternatives to waiting on the phone for information, which will include the web for those who prefer it.

    In addition to revamping the way we handle public enquiries, we will provide a separate service for candidates and parties at the next general election.

    A conference was held from March 13 to 15, 2002, to acquaint the chairman, members and secretaries of the commissions with their roles and responsibilities with regard to the redistribution process as well as to examine various aspects related to redistribution. I am grateful to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Honourable Peter Milliken, for his welcoming remarks at the opening of the conference. As well, I wish to thank the chairman of this committee, Mr. Adams, and the following members: Derek Lee, Gurbax Malhi, Lorne Nystrom, Karen Redman, Scott Reid, John Richardson, Jacques Saada and Tony Tirabassi. I'm also most appreciative of the fact that the Honourable Ralph Goodale was able to address the participants of the conference in his capacity as the minister designated for the purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act.

    Currently, we are providing professional, technical, financial and administrative support to the 10 federal electoral boundaries commissions. Every commission has started to work. We have provided each commission with a geographic information system application and a trained cartographic technician that allows them to develop boundary scenarios quickly—in less than a few hours—and accurately, using a computer. This used to take weeks to do. The system has proven so effective that some of the commissions are already submitting draft proposals to Elections Canada for verification. As well, we have offered the software to the five provinces where a provincial redistribution is taking place this year. These are: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

    We have created an innovative Internet module dedicated solely to the redistribution now underway. Throughout the process, it will provide information and raise public awareness. The proposed boundaries for every electoral district will be posted there, alongside the existing boundaries. Members of Parliament and others will be able to verify this on the Internet site. This is all accessible to the public.

    During the course of the redistribution process, I will give members of the House of Commons advance notice when the electoral boundaries commission for their province is about the publish its proposals. I will therefore be writing to each member of Parliament when there is a change in his or her province, and I will indicate the dates of public hearings as well as the date when the commission will be ready to table its report in the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons may make representations at the public hearings—and I am repeating myself here—and again once the commission's reports are tabled in the report. I will be writing to you in order to advise you of this matter.

Á  (1135)  

    We will remain at the service of parliamentarians in their study and reform of electoral legislation. We will also continue holding regular meetings of our various advisory committees: political parties, returning officers and the National Register of Electors. Currently there are three. They are important forums within which to discuss issues related to electoral administration and legislation.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that, then, is an overview of the activities that we plan to undertake during this fiscal year. You will find more detailed information, of course, in our reports on plans and priorities, which you recently received and are currently discussing.

    Janice and I would be pleased to answer your questions, to the best of our ability.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Jean-Pierre, merci.

    I notice your mention of sharing information with the committee--for example, the Statistics Canada assessments and the publicity. We're always grateful when you can share information with us.

    By the way, at the beginning I didn't thank you for your formal response to questions received at our last meeting. Those responses have been circulated to this committee.

    If ever this committee can be of use to you.... We are particularly proud of the fact that the revival of the advisory committee, which you mentioned a couple of times, came from this committee. We follow its progress with great interest. Thank you for that.

    Colleagues, the list I have is Ted White, Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond or Stéphane Bergeron, Jacques Saada, Rick Borotsik, Marlene Catterall, and Cheryl Gallant.

    Ted.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Peter.

    I have a few questions. We'll see how far I get through them before a second round.

    Mr. Kingsley, if you'll refer to page 12 in the estimates, part III, there's a table there, “Agency Planned Spending”. Under the planned spending column for 2002-03, there is the total for main estimates at $59,717,000. It's significantly larger than for either last year or upcoming years.

    I realize you've gone into some detail about how the expenses break down, but if somebody were just to ask you what is the single largest component that's caused that figure to be so large in 2002-03, what answer would you give?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will ask Janice to respond, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Janice Vézina (Senior Director, Elections Financing and Corporate Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): There are a number of items. One of the larger ones is redistribution at $6 million; that accounts for part of it. We also have our readiness activities. As Mr. Kingsley said, we're aiming for March 31, 2002, on readiness, so our restocking is happening and all of our readiness activities--

    The Chair: That is 2003, Janice.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes.

    It's about $8 million for that. We also have an increase in our IT costs, such as I think most people experience when they implement new systems. That is accounting for about $4 million in increase.

    Those are some examples of the major items.

    Mr. Ted White: Fine.

    In terms of the increase in the number of seats from 301 to 308, can you give some idea of what effect that may have on your estimates? Is it a proportional thing, or are there going to be special costs?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: We've looked at that from an election-delivery perspective--not the ongoing costs, but at an election--and we're estimating between $3 million and $3.5 million increase for the seven ridings.

    Mr. Ted White: Is that a straight proportional basis, compared to the existing stock?

    Ms. Janice Vézina: We would need additional stock, in breaking it into lots--308 instead of 301--but primarily it's opening up the seven offices: renting seven more offices, and the staff, and that type of thing.

    Mr. Ted White: I see.

    In terms of complaints investigations and prosecutions under the Elections Act, can you tell me how many outstanding files there are, and what your estimates are for how much will be spent on those, and when they'll all be wrapped up? Can you give me some idea from the last election?

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are about 150 being investigated at the present time that remain from the 2000 general election, and prosecutions are being initiated as they come to the end of the process. Approximately 750 have been disposed of one way or another, including cases that are before the courts now.

    In terms of costs, the commissioner has advised me he's expecting it would cost approximately $600,000 to complete the work he has undertaken so far.

    Mr. Ted White: Is there a time estimate for when that might be achieved?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The $600,000 is for this year, and the 18-month time limit for initiating prosecutions is coming to an end for the 2000 general election. The court cases that will proceed will be proceeding by this year, obviously. I would expect that takes care of the brunt of the complaints.

    Mr. Ted White: Does everyone who has filed a complaint get some sort of communication to advise that nothing's being done or the case is going ahead?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The commissioner writes to every person who has written in with a complaint to explain how the case has been disposed of. This is a matter he owes to anyone who has complained.

    Mr. Ted White: Okay.

    In terms of the improvements you're making to the permanent list of electors, can you give a cost estimate for the changes you're making, and can you also indicate whether you've made the expected cost savings in administering and maintaining the electoral list?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In terms of the cost savings--and I will ask Janice to attempt to reply to the first part of your question--we have so far, with the register of electors, crossed the break-even point and realized economies of $40 million approximately. It's slightly more than that, but I will round it out to $40 million at this stage. At this stage, we're still expecting to save $30 million net at every general election. This may be reduced, depending on some of the measures that may result from discussions with this committee on how to improve the quality of the lists.

    But at this stage, we're still aiming for $30 million, and I will advise the committee whenever we start to go below the $30 million--whenever a measure becomes a permanent measure to increase the quality. I expect there will be some. But that means there is still a gross savings of $50 million, and it's still an expenditure of approximately $5 million for four years that we're deducting from that $50 million to arrive at a $30 million net.

    Perhaps Janice could answer the first part.

    Ms. Janice Vézina: In terms of improvements to the register, the quality improvement initiatives are budgeted at $1 million. Mr. Kingsley also mentioned that we're revamping our field system, whereby we update the list during the election. That's budgeted at $1.9 million.

    Those are the two major items. There's another item that involves the quality of the list. That is where the returning officers are reviewing their own districts and looking at where they might have issues and problems and giving us feedback. That again is partially a quality initiative, and it's budgeted at $1.5 million.

    Those are the three key areas.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I understand Joe Jordan has deferred to Rick Borotsik, so it's Rick Borotsik, then Joe Jordan, then Michel Guimond or Stéphane Bergeron.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Jordan. I have to unfortunately take my leave very quickly.

    There are three questions, actually, if I can do them quickly.

    First, you talk about provincial cooperation in your report. I think that's very laudable. Are you receiving the same kind of cooperation from the majority of provinces right now? Some provinces will be going to the polls very quickly, certainly before the next federal election. Do you have the ability to amend the voters list, the electoral list, from that provincial information you're receiving?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would have to say, on the first part, that the relationship with the provinces and territories in the 12 years I've been at the helm of Elections Canada has never been better.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would say they're exceedingly satisfactory with most,and satisfactory with two.

    With respect to amending the list, the Canada Elections Act allows us right now to take any list from any election--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you doing that, though?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, we are. We did it for the Ontario election. We did it for the Quebec election, and for other provinces as well. Whenever we can get that list automated, at a reasonable cost, we update our files accordingly.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You mentioned, and I find this interesting, for the first time ever you're able to register new electors, particularly youth, coming off the CCRA and income tax statements. Have you actually implemented some of those registrations to date, or are you just doing it for the tax year of 2002?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We're doing it for the tax year 2001, which is taking place now. The form was changed in time--as I promised this committee--for this taxation year. So this year, starting, I think, in July, when we get the data concerning April 30 reports--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're talking about a very mobile population here. You're identifying, legitimately so, the youth who are filing taxes for the first time, entering the age of majority.

    Do you have a system in place to be able to follow these through the system? There's going to be a lot of movement, a lot of mobility, with these individuals, so how do you plan on doing that?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We intend to update their address changes through their annual filing of income tax--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: CCRA.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: --or their change of address with the transport departments of eight out of the ten provinces, and the three territories.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: And you have cross-referenced that within your computer software?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, we have. We have names matching with addresses. We call it--you'll have to forgive the expression--“string proximity measures”. I'm very pleased to say that's what we have. It allows us to match with 99.9% accuracy.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm comfortable with your budget numbers. I appreciate the fact there's a substantial increase for 2002-03 over 2001-02. I think you've explained that fairly legitimately here, with the redistribution costs and the information technology, which you've discussed.

    The one thing I have to come back to is the communications with electors, which you identify on page 8. If there was one serious, user-unfriendly situation in the last election, it was communication with the electorate, particularly the ad campaign. You say here that you are continually upgrading and working with your ad agency. Are there any safeguards there?

    Part of the problem last time was that, if you're not registered, if you don't have your electoral registration, you can't vote. We know that's not the case. That wasn't part of the problem. Is there a check and balance from your ad agency? You're working with them closely, but maybe they're not doing the right thing.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I indicated to the committee last time, I was responsible for those ads, not the ad agency.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there any check and balance with the ad agency then?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, there is now.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We are going to be doing this as part of a collegial effort. This is where I would want to have input from the committee as well.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: And that's where I was--

    The Chair: I think we should start deferring to the chair.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry.

    The Chair: The same to the witnesses.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: My last question would be through you, Mr. Chair, to the witness. Would the witness be prepared to appear before this committee prior to the next election in order to give us a better understanding of what the ad campaign will be?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, sir.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan, Stéphane Bergeron, and Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses.

    I would like to pick up on the point Mr. White made on the statement and documentation of the cost savings promised. I think that's an important reconciliation process to go through in these reports. As we move forward, it certainly makes it easier if the system is doing what it was supposed to be doing. Certainly that was one of the things that was presented as a rationale. And it's a good-news story, so I think we need to flavour that.

    I just want to come back to the redistribution process. We've met with our equivalent committee in Ontario. I notice that you're certainly liaising with the provinces going through their own processes. But Ontario--and I don't know whether there are other provinces--is a little unique, because they have linked their distribution and ridings with ours. So if we change ours federally, my understanding is that theirs will automatically change.

    I don't know what the timeframe is on this. But we're very sensitive on the timing of this, that we don't get into a situation federally where you have information about riding distribution prior to an election so that somebody may be.... You know, people may be voting for somebody who's no longer going to be representing them, or whatever. And we need to have that. But that may not be the case provincially. We may be putting the province in a bit of a bind in the way we release this information, because their election timing isn't the same as ours.

    Is there any formal communication with Ontario on that, or any strategy for that?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would like to correct one point. The federal level is not going to be doing anything to the provincial level. The province has decided to tie its seats to the federal--

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan: No, absolutely. I understand that.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: So whatever process is being followed at the federal level, they have their law and how it kicks in. So we just go ahead and do what we're supposed to do.

     But in terms of contacts, I am in almost daily contact with the Chief Election Officer of Ontario, who's a very good colleague and a very good friend. We provide him with all the information concerning the redistribution process.

    As a matter of fact, when I am in Toronto at the end of the month, I will be making sure that he meets the chair and two members of the commission. They can establish their own rapport with anyone at the provincial level who would wish to make representations, because that is their right as Canadians.

    So it could not be better. It is absolutely open and it could not be better.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

    Certainly I was extremely interested in the reference you made...and I don't want you to “string proximity measure” me, but this system where they can adjust the boundaries is, I'm assuming, a computer system. That would really speed things up, because to crunch those numbers manually, like they would have had to do in the past, would have taken a great deal of time. If I hear you properly, they can now make adjustments, and everything else adjusts, so that very quickly they can come up with scenarios that meet the pressures that have initiated this process.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: So it might very well be that the timeframe for this, the process itself, could be reduced, provided we have the proper public input and everything.

    At the front end, if I hear you correctly, you're saying these commissions are already way ahead of where they would have normally been manually because of this technology. Is that correct?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, because of that and because of the fact that we started the commissions early. I'm writing to the commissions presently to ask them what their calendar is in terms of achieving results. There are certain timeframes that are built into the legislation concerning public input and so on and so forth, and these must be respected.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, absolutely.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If anyone is interested, we will do a demo for you. Quite frankly, that software is magnificent. That's why we're sharing it at no cost with the provinces that are interested and are doing redistribution. It's a no-cost item insofar as we're concerned. We're going to generate savings at our end.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

    The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron, Jacques Saada, Marlene Catterall, and Cheryl Gallant.

[Translation]

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

    Good morning, Mr. Kingsley. It is always a pleasure to have you back again here, at the committee. Although I'm no longer an official member of this committee—in fact, I am an associate member—I always try my best to be here when you appear, because I am always interested in issues pertaining to the electoral system.

    When you talked about the riding boundary review, you mentioned an address you had given at a conference held last March. You also pointed out the attendance of certain members from this committee, and you thanked them for attending. I would like to point out that I was not there because I never received an invitation, whereas you had in fact said that some associate members of this committee would be receiving an invitation. I would really have liked to have attended, however, be that as it may, I am happy to see that some of my colleagues were in attendance.

    As regards vote 30 of the main estimates and the statutory authority, I would first of all like to know if either one includes votes allocated to the elections commissioner.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer to your second question is yes. That includes votes for the fees paid to the commissioner.

    As regards your first question, may I begin by saying that it is always a pleasure to see you here again.

    Secondly, as regards this invitation that was never given to you, I will ask the...

[English]

    The Chair: Maybe I could comment, Stéphane.

    As you know, we have lists and lists of associate members. Some of those members are people like you with an interest, I'm sure, but some of them, with due respect, are not. I asked each of the whips, all five whips on my committee, to ask members of their caucuses if they were interested in attending. I do regret that you were missed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman.

    Going back to my second question, Mr. Kingsley, if I may, I would like to ask whether or not the commissioner has to justify his vote.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The votes for the commissioner are my votes.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but sometimes we ask you questions about the commissioner, and you invariably answer by saying that the commissioner is independent, that he of course falls within your purview but that he has is own responsibilities. So if he is independent when it comes time to obtain answers, why is he not independent when it is a matter of justifying votes?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: He is and, should the committee decide to invite him to appear, he will accept the invitation.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That would be very interesting since we obviously have certain questions that we would like to ask him.

    As regards the leadership race, Mr. Kingsley, we know that the ethics adviser has suggested that some parameters need to be defined. Has the ethics adviser or the Prime Minister's Office contacted you in any way about leadership races? I know that this issue concerns you a great deal and it does us as well. Curiously, up until now, the Liberal Party has demonstrated very little interest in incorporating leadership races into the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Now that there is a very specific situation that has an impact on the party, it is suddenly interested in the matter of leadership races. Have you participated directly or indirectly in the thought process taking place in the Prime Minister's cabinet or in the ethics adviser's office?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Neither the Ethics Counsellor nor anyone from the Prime Minister's Office has contacted me directly or indirectly about this issue. However, I would like to clarify for the committee that these are two very different and distinct things. The Ethics Counsellor administers the Conflict of Interest Code that applies exclusively to ministers or parliamentary secretaries in a particular government whereas my recommendations pertain to all federal political parties, all leadership campaigns and all candidates in such campaigns. We are therefore talking about two entirely different worlds. We must not accuse either party of not consulting the other, because the objectives of each party are very different.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, the objectives may be different, but your office has already worked on the disclosure of sources of financing for leadership campaigns. I believe that this is one of the issues to be covered in the parameters that the Prime Minister and Ethics Counsellor intend to propose. So it would have been a good idea to have considered and taken advantage of the work that has already been done in this area.

    Be that as it may, I note that you also pointed out in your presentation that the returning officers had been instructed to communicate with the members of Parliament from the various political parties about the definition or identification of polling stations. In this respect, I would like to thank you, given the very serious problems that we experienced during the last election. However, I would like to draw to your attention the fact that some returning officers, mine in this case, are still maintaining that they must stay within budget and cannot exceed it. They use this argument to justify decisions that may appear, in some respects, to be unjustified. I note that you have already answered this question, Mr. Kingsley, but you may wish to add something.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would simply like to repeat that they have indeed been provided with the budget because we don't want people to spend without being accountable for their actions. Nevertheless, every returning officer can easily obtain an increase in their budget by making a telephone call. We respond within three hours. I made this commitment and the budgets have been increased as a result.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Then there are some returning officers who do not know about this commitment or claim not to know about it.

    That being said, you also talked about the pilot project or the feasibility study for on-line registration. You are aware of the reservations I have about doing things by e-mail. Currently, aside from on-line registration which is not yet a reality, what means, other than the polling stations, are available to voters to ensure that they are registered on the voters' list?

    The Chair: Your answer will have to be brief.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is fine.

    If names are not on our list, but are on a provincial or municipal list of electors and we are given a copy of it, we add them to our list because these people are recognized as Canadian electors. People can also write to us directly. This is the second option they have. The options are still limited. There is also the new initiative targeting tax filers that can be used to add people to the list, whereas we used to be able only to change the information we already had on them. So these are the three ways that come to mind.

    What we are trying to find out is whether on-line registration would be possible through MP's offices, in other words, in a controlled environment, or in a more general way, when the security measures allow for it. That is what we are looking into right now.

    The Chair: We will have a second round now. I will first go to Marlene Catterall, followed by Cheryl Gallant, then the chair.

    I am sorry, Mr. Saada. This is complicated. I had forgotten you. The floor is yours.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you again for coming before the committee, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Vézina, but I have two or three points to make. The first deals with the list of electors. On several occasions, when you have been here, I have highlighted the importance of having lists based on electors' addresses, as was the case before, and not just alphabetical order; I believe that others have raised the same point. I explained why this was important, in particular from an organizational standpoint and from the standpoint of trying to get as much local input as possible in order to improve the list and enhance the right to vote, if you will. I have not heard any response on your part to this suggestion.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to ask my two or three questions. It will be easier that way.

    I will certainly not get into the details of how we organize our election campaign because, as you know, we often work on the basis of the geographic breakdown of the riding, and an alphabetical list or one that gives the number of married women versus the number of unmarried women, etc., complicates things a great deal. It is impossible to verify information. So we lose an opportunity to help people get on the register of electors.

    Second, while I fully support the principle of allowing people to register right up until the end of the polling day, it seems to me that political organizations in the ridings also have a role in getting out the vote. So the later that people are allowed to register, the fewer people we can contact to try and ensure that they go out and vote.

    How can we find a better balance between these two concerns? I will explain. If I know that I have a voters' list that is relatively up-to-date three, four or five days before election day, the organizational structure that I have in place makes it easy for me to set up a system to contact these people and try to get them out to vote. But I cannot do anything in the case of those who register on election day itself. In other words, what can we do about the buffer period, if we can call it that, between the fourth or fifth day before the election and election day in order to give candidates in the ridings some tools to work with?

    Third—and this is off-topic, but it intrigues me—I learned from your website that, in 1993, 15 sentences were handed out for violations of the Canada Elections Act. In 1997, there were 15 again and, in 2000, there were only 5. Does that mean that something good happened somewhere or is it just coincidence?

    My last question deals with the need to reach out to young people in particular. It is obviously very difficult for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to go into schools, since they are under provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, not all provinces, from what I have been told, have a mandatory civics course in their curriculum. So it seems to me that if there is no instruction in civics, there is very little chance that young people will be educated on this issue in school. I am thinking mainly of those in their last two years of secondary school and first years of post-secondary education. Do you cooperate with provincial returning officers to ensure that there is outreach in the schools that goes beyond just written communication?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I gave you a partial answer last time about the lists broken down by address. I will respond with a written answer to the committee, and I will do the same regarding Ms. Catterall's question on the list of changes that would accompany the list we send out on October 15. We are working on that. I will get back to the committee on these two questions.

    With respect to registration on election day, I share your concern, and that was, to some extent, what I wanted to say to Mr. Borotsik earlier. The advertising campaigns are aimed at getting people to make changes to the list prior to the sixth day before the election date. What happened in the last election was that over 1 million Canadians registered on polling day. That was a huge number. We cannot allow the system to have to cope with such numbers. It is too onerous. We need to reduce that number. To a large extent, we will have a better list of electors—I talked about that earlier—and the advertising campaign will be more refined than the one we have done to date. Those are some of the initiatives we have taken. We need to improve the quality of the list before election day. That is obvious.

    On the question of sentences that have been handed down, it should be pointed out that the figures for 1993 and 1997 are final. For 2000, we do not yet have a final number. I explained earlier that there are just over 150 cases that are still under investigation, and the commissioner could well decide to prosecute in many of these cases. As you have also noticed, settlements have been reached between the commissioner and people that were presumed to have committed an offence, which is something new that did not exist before. To date, 31 investigations of this type have been added. People who have admitted their guilt do not have a criminal record, for all practical purposes, which would not be the case if they were taken to court and found guilty. This option was presented in a number of cases and many people took advantage of it. I therefore feel that the current system is better because it has allowed us to identify a number of offences and has made it unnecessary for us to go to court.

    With respect to outreach to young people, I am beginning to work with my provincial colleagues. Of course, I will have to respect what they do in their respective provinces and see whether we can help other provinces more than we have done up to now. We also have two elector's kits that we provide to schools on request, one for the secondary level and one for the primary level, to help them learn about the process.

    So I have already taken steps in this regard, and I will be pleased to report to you on the situation at the next meeting. You have raised a crucial point. I completely agree with you.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Do I have any time left?

[English]

    The Chair: You actually have time for one remark.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: When we talk about registering voters on the same day as the vote, we are establishing a date that, in the end, is arbitrary, in other words, the date that was chosen for the vote, and this is based on the principle that everyone who goes that far can register right up to that point.

    Would it be absolutely heretical to indicate or suggest that the deadline for registering for the vote not necessarily be election day? Philosophically speaking, in principle, is there anything that would prevent us from setting an earlier date than that, precisely to avoid having to register a million people?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is what we did in the past, and it was problematic. But I would like to come back to the question after having spent more time considering it. Is that okay?

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    So now it is Marlene Catterall, Cheryl Gallant, the chair, Ted White, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): It will come as no surprise to you that I'm interested in how accurate our lists remain over time with respect to representation of different demographics in Canadian society.

    Perhaps I can start by asking, have we done an analysis of new citizens registration? Do we know how successful we are at having new citizens register as electors?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's about 85%. About 85% to 90% say yes to being added to the list voluntarily.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Have we done any research to find out why some say no, or what are the demographics of those who don't say yes? They don't say no, I guess; they just don't say yes.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'm looking at ways of achieving this, and one of the difficulties is that I cannot know who they are, but I am looking at asking other agencies if they would approach the people who say no, or who say nothing, and ask why this is the case. Thereby we could increase the take-up for both new Canadians and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Even though 85% is good, I would like to drive it up much higher than that.

    Out of that 85%, by the way, on the CCRA file, half of them say no and the other half say nothing. So I think it's worth exploring, but I want to know as well who says no, and why.

    So, yes, we're looking into that.

  (1210)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I haven't seen what information people are given or what question they're asked. Do they have to indicate yes or no, or is it either they say yes or they don't bother?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's yes or no, and if they don't take anything, then we cannot add them. We cannot take an absence of something as being a yes.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, I understand that.

    You know I've had concerns from the beginning that over a period of time there are certain groups in society we might be more likely to drop off the list than others. I wanted to know whether in your estimates this year you have provided any resources for research into how representative of the voters your lists continue to be.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think I alluded to this in some parts of my presentation. In effect we do want to find out what the mobility of the financially disadvantaged in our society is. What is the mobility of youth? What is the mobility of different target groups? This is so we can find out if they're dropping off more, as you have suggested. Now we have access to that data because StatsCan did the survey in 2001; this is what we're doing with StatsCan at this time.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can you give me a little more information on how the research is being done and what it's showing? As well, can you tell us what kind of corrective measures you might take if, for instance, you found that people on low income tended to drop off more, renters dropped off more than homeowners, and people who were illiterate tended to drop off? It might be a little difficult to get that through research.

    I noticed that many of the tools you had for keeping the list up to date are more appropriate for middle-class Canadians than for others. They have to do with things like having a driver's licence and filing income tax returns. I didn't hear you mention welfare recipients, people who receive a guaranteed income supplement, people who receive disability pensions though the provincial systems, and so on.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In terms of how we're going to carry out the research, we're undertaking this right now. I would be pleased to share this with the committee and tell you exactly how we're going to be doing it and which areas we're going to be targeting. In terms of additional measures, it may well be that we will be recommending, for example, that there be targeted revision outside the electoral period, between elections. Let's say one year before an anticipated date, halfway through a mandate, or maybe annually we would target certain areas where we know that there are problems when it comes time for election and the targeted revision is not quite doing what it should do.

    The problem with targeted revision is that when the people are not home, they don't fill out the forms. This is what we're finding out. If they're there, they do fill out the forms. We fill it out for them as if it were a door-to-door enumeration. That is something we'll have to look at and look at very seriously. I will come back to you with that recommendation or other recommendations as we find out more about these people.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I personally would be interested in a description of the research as to how it's being carried out, where and over what period of time, and so on. I wonder if you would comment on whether you have considered other sources, such as those I've mentioned, ones that might be more likely to capture fewer middle-class voters.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, we're certainly more than willing to consider those, and I think your suggestions are very good. I'll be taking them back, we will look at those, and I will tell you what the outcome is after we consider them.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I've mentioned three possibilities, but there are probably others I haven't thought of.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right, and there might be more, which others on the committee or elsewhere may have. We're also more and more involved with academia to find out about these different sources and to explore ways of improving the register.

    There was one conference the IRPP held maybe two months back where some of these ideas started to bubble, and we're pursuing all of them. I'm more than willing to pursue any avenue any member of this committee wishes us to pursue. You've named three, and we'll look at the record and pursue them.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: How soon do you think you might have some results from this research you could share with the committee?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would hope that within six months we'll be able to report back. I will tell you about the timeframes when I write to you about how we're proceeding.

    The Chair: It is usually directed through the chair so that I can share it with the committee.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: That's quite all right. No need to grovel, Marlene; you don't get any extra time.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Cheryl Gallant, then the chair, Ted White, then Stéphane Bergeron.

    Cheryl.

    Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Province of Ontario is considering having the voter card printing centralized in Toronto. I was wondering whether or not there were any considerations given at Elections Canada to centralize the printing of voting cards as well.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We have asked printers in different parts of the land what their printing capabilities are based on the transmittal of automated files. So it may be that we will be going more to regional printers than national ones, in terms of only one plant handling all of the voter information cards, and possibly the geographic cards as well, or the maps that you get of polling divisions.

    We're looking at the printing to see how we can save money and improve the quality of what we're doing. It does include a different system, rather than local only printers for voter information cards, for example.

    Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The reason I ask this, Mr. Chairman, is that in our riding we have the problem with voters at rural route addresses being sent to urban polling divisions. This is because the people who are printing the cards, who are given the information to do the printing, have no concept of where the people in the riding actually are.

    There's the added problem of the duplication of printing for individuals--one at a former place of residence, and one at a newer place of residence. So these duplicated voters cards can be utilized at advance polls, and then again, an extra one can be used on election day.

    Then compound that with the fact that, in an advance poll, a person can go literally from polling division to polling division, and swear in if they don't have a card. We've got duplication there as well.

    With the compressed time periods in which we're finding our election campaigns, there's less time to get the voters lists corrected. They do corrections prior to an election, but we're very concerned about the centralizing of the printing. If we want printing cards changed at the last minute, and we ask a local person to do it, they're not going to be very cooperative if we haven't given them the big business initially.

    So my question is twofold. Given the compressed election period we seem to be experiencing, has consideration been given to using the 911 address system, where available, in rural ridings to assist in the assignment of voters to the polling divisions? And what mechanisms are going to be implemented as a cross-check system, to cross-check from advance poll to advance poll, and to cross-check the advance polls against the actual people who voted on election day?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to 911, we're very happy whenever a province converts to 911, because it allows us to standardize addresses throughout the province. This is what I was explaining in terms of New Brunswick, where we were not finished doing a total conversion.

    I know the Chief Election Officer of Ontario is also using our files to review how we've adapted to 911. So that is the norm. It becomes the norm the moment a province goes to 911. But I'll check Ontario, and report back specifically about it, since you've asked about that province.

    In terms of cross-checking, I should mention the fact that you have to sign to obtain a ballot at the advance polls, and the fact that you have to sign when you register on polling day has given us an opportunity to cross-check all instances where potentially there could have been a double vote. This has resulted in between 15 and 30 agreements with the commissioner where people have been found, and have admitted to, voting twice.

    We have a system now that allows us to cross-check this type of information. This has just been posted on the internet site for Elections Canada. I intend to have it more generally publicized so that Canadians know that we have ways of checking these things.

    I will not hesitate to recommend ways of improving the facility and ability of Elections Canada to check instances such as these.

  (1220)  

    Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The opportunity to do the cross-checking exists. At this time, then, to what extent is the opportunity actually being utilized?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As a matter of fact, we did undertake a major exercise. What I would like to do--with your permission, Mr. Chairman--is to write to you, giving you the numbers and the process we followed, so that the committee is well aware of all this.

    The one thing we do not have is the ability to cross-check as the double voting--or the presumed double voting--is taking place, because we don't have the communications and computerized means right now to go between polling divisions. This is part of the problem. But we will be able to when we are able either to prosecute, and certainly to investigate, or to arrive at an agreement between the person and the commissioner to admit their fault.

    As for all the people who have done so, that is on the website of Elections Canada, posted I think yesterday or the day before. But I will be coming back to the committee.

    Ms. Cheryl Gallant: In the instances where there are razor-thin margins of victory, how quickly can this be implemented to ensure that we're not putting the incorrect MP into power?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The remedy for what you have branded as the “incorrect MP into power” is after the election. The process is that if there's anything on the recount, that takes place very rapidly. But if there is any other allegation, even for a razor-thin one or even if it's a major one but mistakes were made in the electoral process, that is part of the measures concerning controverted elections.

    And just so the committee members know, and I think many of you do know, whoever is elected is elected. If a court decides that person is not elected, the election is reversed but is not retroactive. Then a new election takes place. The last time this occurred in Canada at the federal level was during the 1988 elections, and the court decision was in 1990. A byelection was held in 1990 to correct that measure, because there were administrative difficulties.

    The Chair: Thanks, Cheryl.

    Jean-Pierre, I wonder if we could return to this question of youth voting but a bit more generally. I think we're very fortunate in Canada at the University of Montreal to have a centre of international expertise in this. Is it Professor Blais? Would you know the name?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: André Blais, yes.

    The Chair: I heard a presentation of his.

    We're concerned about the decline of interest in elections in Canada, particularly at the federal level. We pretend to try to explain that internally by saying, for example, the government is being elected for the third mandate, and interest isn't as high as it was when it was elected for the first mandate.

    But I understand that Professor Blais and his group who are working on this phenomenon in all the major democracies says that, first of all, there is a decline in interest in all the democracies, whether it be a first election, second election, or third election, and they corrected for those differences.

    Secondly, they say that the decline is almost entirely explained by a reduction in the percentage of young people voting. There can be two explanations for that. One is that young people are becoming more and more disenchanted with the system. That may well be so. They may well find it boring or irrelevant or whatever, even more so than did young people in the past. But the other set of explanations lies in what we're discussing.

    For example, I suspect that young people at that age have always been fairly mobile in terms of going to college or university. They move around, take their first job, or start a home and move away. It's a time of great movement. That may be increasing. In other words, they may becoming more and more mobile in those years than they were in the past.

    I wonder if you have discussed this with colleagues in other jurisdictions--not provincially but internationally--and if you have followed up on Professor Blais' findings in that regard. Have they explanations that have nothing to do with the election--first term, second term, third term--but more to do with the nature of their mobility and the fact that they aren't being captured in their mobile state?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: On the international stage, I attended a conference in Majorca several months ago where we dealt with absenteeism from the polls, not specifically focusing on youth but certainly focusing on the phenomenon. Youth was discussed as an issue, because it was seen that reaching out to youth was the issue.

    In terms of research, we keep abreast of what is going on. We know Professor Blais very well. He's one of the people we meet with regularly to discuss various matters. As a matter of fact, we have a study we've commissioned with professors Pammett and LeDuc dealing with why people vote and why people don't vote. This is being carried out right now through a massive survey of Canadians, and as I've agreed to do before, I'll be reporting the findings to you.

    It may be they will talk about some of the things Elections Canada doesn't do well, or some of the things politicians don't do well--it's an open study--and I'll be reporting back here. There will be segmentation by different age groups so that we're able to report about youth.

    So, yes, we do keep abreast around the world, and the phenomenon is worldwide.

    The Chair: I want to stress that he stressed, in this international study the University of Montreal is engaged in, that it's almost entirely explainable by youth, which is a remarkable thing. Given the age of the population, what it means is that the top-end, consistent voters are staying in the system--I think that's a part of the explanation--whereas people are being lost at the lower levels. I found that to be most interesting. Yet when I talk to young people--for example, the ones who get engaged in our election campaigns--they get just as excited as they used to. You have campus recruitment, registration, and things like that, and yet the percentage is still going down. It's going down here and in all those other countries.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There was a problem at the last election where a number of youth were not on the lists. You will remember the write-out campaign we did; only 25% of them came back to even say they wanted to be on the register. They assumed they were on the register because they got a letter.

    These are things we have to overcome with finer ways of reaching out to youth. This is what we have done, and what we're going to continue to do, because I'm not satisfied with 80%.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    It's Ted White, Stéphane Bergeron, and Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I must contact you, Mr. Kingsley, to get contact information for the people doing the study. Concerning the low voter turnout, I believe, as I have said to you before, the more democratic the country and the closer the level of the government to the people, the lower the voter turnout. You can see that all over the world. It may not necessarily be people losing interest. It might be actually because things run fairly well.

    Coming back to questions to do with the estimates, concerning the electronic voting abilities that were passed in Bill C-2, can you tell me what studies you've done, and whether you've set aside money to do any studies or trials of electronic voting? Do you actually have a date or a plan to attempt an electronic byelection?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No moneys have been set aside per se. We're waiting for technology that will allow us to go beyond the study that is on our website now and has been there for several years. It was carried out by KPMG. We have not yet found a way--and technology is not there, widespread and available--to check who's at the other end doing the voting.

    The security things can be overcome. Security of transmission, you can do that. Security of programming, there are ways to satisfy political parties on this. There's lots of American experience, but nowhere have they run an election--with the Internet, for example--from a remote location where they have been able to satisfy people that they knew who was doing the voting. The giving of a PIN is not satisfactory, because you don't know who is using the PIN; this is the problem. It's when we get to an ability for people to register and give us a shot of either their iris or their facial features, and we're able to check it as they vote, that we may be able to come to this committee and say, “We think we've found something and we would like to try it out during this byelection.”

    I don't think we're there yet, sir.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Ted White: From what you've said, I assume the high level of identification required would actually be superior to what we do now, where there is obviously the opportunity for people to use somebody else's voting card, go in, and sign as someone else.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, superior and economically viable.

    Mr. Ted White: Okay.

    In terms of the gag-law case--the third-party advertising challenge that's going ahead, I'm sure you know what I mean--do you have any dates when that might heard by the higher courts?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My understanding is that the Alberta Court of Appeal would hear that case starting this week, or next week. That's my best memory.

    Mr. Ted White: Is the computer program to adjust the boundaries sophisticated enough to take into account geographic impediments like mountain ranges, or freeways that cut through a riding and divide it in half, or rivers, or harbours and so forth? Or does it just say, yes, this is very convenient, I'll just move everything over there?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. Geographical features are part of the variables it takes into account, as well as roads, waterways, mountain ranges, and a whole slew of variables, or data transmitted to us by Statistics Canada from surveys, socio-demographic data, such as language at home, and so forth. All of these are in the computer data bank.

    If you or anyone else would like to visit Elections Canada, I would be more than happy to give you a demonstration of what that software can achieve.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you for that invitation.

    I have one final question not directly related to the estimates. In terms of the boundaries readjustment or redistribution process, you mentioned that, because of this program, some of the commissions are already submitting draft proposals to Elections Canada. Through my personal contacts, I had gathered from the commissions that many of them wouldn't be holding public hearings until Labour Day at the earliest.

    Do you still think that's going to be the case, or will there be some attempt to hold hearings over the summer? Do you feel that they will be ready to do that?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think one or two of them may be ready to hold public hearings in the near future. There are required timeframes that must be met in terms of public announcements. I'm sure the commissions will want to adhere to these. This is my understanding.

    As I said earlier today, I am writing to the commissions to find out what their calendar of events are. I will be happy to share these with you.

    Mr. Ted White: I would love that. Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And I'd obviously share these with the committee.

    The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I just have three comments and a short question at the end.

    Everything cannot always be bad at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, on the contrary. I am very happy to see that you are currently studying the issue of voter information cards addressed to "the occupant".

    I am also very satisfied to see that you are recommending that returning officers be authorized to accept changes of address when people have moved from one riding to another.

    I also think that it is an excellent idea to request comments from members on the voters' list when it is sent to them each October. If few parliamentarians participated this year, perhaps it is simply because the procedure is new. One must hope and think that perhaps, more and more, they will automatically set an example and send you the information you need so that the list can be as good as possible when it comes time for an election.

    Now, my question is very simple. From what you said in your presentation, I did not clearly understand if you had an idea, be it specific or at least approximate, as to when the various commissions would start publicly submitting their suggestions.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I believe that for the most populated provinces, the public consultations will take place at the start of September or in October.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Will they be based on the suggestions, or will the suggestions come after?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The commission proposes....

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Precisely.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: ...and it is inviting the public to make representations to the commission.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So that means that the proposals from the commissions in the most populated provinces should come out this summer, if I understand you correctly.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They should be out over the summer: at the end of August or at the start of September. They will be published in the papers. They will obviously also be available on our website. Then, the public will be invited to comment. After that, the commissions will prepare a proposal for Parliament. The additional comments will follow and there will be a final determination for the commissions. I have written to all of the commissions, but I can write to you more specifically to give you the schedule for each province.

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

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a comment on the lists. The lists will not have to be Elections Canada's lists. The National Register of Electors will be an Elections Canada tool. It will become a tool for all parliamentarians, political parties, so that it will be recognized that these are their lists—your list—and not Elections Canada's list. We must change that attitude, and it is through greater participation by members in the entire process that we will succeed in doing so.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could you clarify your thinking on that? I am not sure that I follow you.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When we send you the list each year, I would like to obtain some information from you, such as where the errors are, how satisfied you are, etc. That is why we want to prepare a list of the changes that have been made. It is to help you in your work, to facilitate revising it all, so that you and the people working with you can do a more in-depth analysis. This also concerns political parties. They too must be able to take advantage of this opportunity, because they do not necessarily have members or representatives everywhere. The goal is for it to become a tool that belongs to members, candidates and political parties, and not a tool that Elections Canada provides which represents something with which you are not familiar. That very attitude did not serve us well in the last general election.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Precisely. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Stéphane.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is your tool and it is my pleasure to maintain it for you. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Jean-Pierre. Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I will be brief. Election day is drawing near. We check, and my name is on the list. I am on my way to vote. Later, someone shows up to vote and gives my name. He is the real voter and not me. The real voter will have to sign and show proof of identity. We do not know who the imposter is. In other words, what we are not able to do with a voter card, we do through the back door to the detriment of the real voter. Is my explanation clear?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Are you in favour of a voter card?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have already said no, and my answer remains the same: I am not in favour of a voter card.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: So, if I understand correctly, that means that there is a problem with respect to identifying the voter, which is done by default. In other words, in the case I just described, the person who was not entitled to vote did so without a problem, whereas the real voter was forced to identify himself. There is no way of resolving that problem in the short term, without requesting some kind of identification. But you are telling me that you are against that principle. So where does the solution lie?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You are asking the Chief Electoral Officer for his opinion. The act is in your hands, not mine.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand, but my question is not cut and dried. I simply want to know if you are in a position to make recommendations that would help solve this problem with identifying real voters and the fact that it is impossible to identify people who are passing themselves off for real voters.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The problem won't go away. Even with a voter's card, fraud is possible if that is the intention. I have seen it everywhere that voter cards exist. Moreover, I am of the opinion that that is an additional measure that would be very costly and that would not necessarily yield good results.

    You must also consider the scope of the problem. However, I could look into how many cases there have been like the one you reported, and I will report back to the committee. We could resume the discussion at that time, if you still feel that the matter warrants a more in-depth examination.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Will you be able to check this? Correct if I'm wrong but on the day of the vote, when people arrive and their name is already struck off the list, they can present their ID and register but it can also be a new registration, for all sorts of reasons. Is there any check into the reasons why these people are already registered?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The case you describe is where a person already showed up using your name.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Exactly.

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, I'll check into how many people have showed up to find that their name had already been used by someone else to vote. I'll see whether we can check into this and I'll report to you. If it is not possible, I'll tell you. If it is possible, I'll inform you about the number of cases so that we can have an idea of the extent of the problem.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Good enough. Thank you.

    The Chair: One last comment, Stéphane.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If, in the view of the Chief Electoral Officer, for reasons that I imagine to be quite legitimate, it is not appropriate to establish a list or to create a voter's card, would it not be advisable in such a case to follow the example of Quebec and require voters to identify themselves using a certain number of recognized documents. I'd like to hear the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer on this, realizing that of course it is up to us as parliamentarians to change the legislation, if necessary. We would like to benefit from your views on the subject.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Before answering the question, we would have to examine what additional benefit there has been to the Quebec election system in relation to the one we have now, that is one factor that we could then take into account. We would have to determine whether there has been an improvement. The Canadian federal system is based on trust in the voter and I think that we must be careful before we start questioning this approach. The credibility of the system, as it is accepted by the population, is at stake. If there were ever any problem relating to the credibility of the system or public perception with respect to its proper functioning, then of course the matter could be appropriately considered. However, I think we would have to ask ourselves whether there is any study that can indicate what is being accomplished by the present Quebec system as compared to the previous one. That might be instructive. I'll find out whether there is such a study and will let you know.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Jean-Pierre and Janice, we thank you. It's been a very informative morning, and we look forward to receiving the various pieces of information.

    Colleagues, I would normally call vote 30 of the estimates now, but I'll call it on Thursday. I'd be grateful if you would advise your parties of that, because there may well be members who did not attend today.

    Colleagues, we meet on Thursday at 11 o'clock in this room on Bill S-34.

    The meeting is adjourned until then.