HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 22, 1999

• 1906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'll call the meeting to order. I see a quorum for continuing our study of Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

Tonight we again have with us Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and a team from Elections Canada.

Mr. Kingsley, perhaps you could introduce your colleagues. This time you may wish to address issues that have come up in the committee discussions. If you do, please feel free to do that off the bat; otherwise we will go to questions from members. There are a lot of questions about little things and big things in the bill. So, as you think fit, you have the floor.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): It's always an indubitable pleasure to have the opportunity to share with members of the committee. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their invitation to continue our discussion from October 28, 1999, when I last appeared here.

As you suggested, I will introduce those who are with me this evening. There are several members of the executive of Elections Canada, including: Janice Vézina, a director of election financing, whom you've met before; Diane Bruyère, the assistant director of operations; and Tom McMahon, the new acting director of legal services, who is replacing Patricia Hassard, who is now the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer.

I do not intend to repeat the statements I made to you earlier. That's rule number one. Nonetheless, to follow your lead, I would like to share a few thoughts on some of the issues that have arisen since my appearance. After that, my colleagues and I will be pleased to respond to your questions.

At my earlier appearance, I circulated a proposal concerning rural vouching. I would like to expand on that proposal. Some possible criteria could include the permitting of vouching in municipalities with populations of less than 5,000, in aboriginal communities, and in residential institutions where the staff could vouch for someone having resided there for a period of time. The elector would still be required to complete the appropriate registration form, which includes a declaration on their qualification as an elector; that is to say, age and citizenship.

I would like to have the opportunity to develop the criteria further with the advisory committee of registered political parties, which I established at the instigation of this committee, and then have the opportunity to submit them to you for your consideration before implementation. So in effect we would continue to have the benefit of vouching without having a formal step declaring it in various parts of a statute by having criteria set out and agreed to outside the law, but giving the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to exercise that and declare those parts of Canada where this would occur.

I also recommended that the act be amended to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the authority to test new electoral procedures, but only after consultation with the committee of the House of Commons responsible for electoral matters—once again, this committee on procedure and House affairs.

During my appearance before you on April 20, 1999, I reiterated the results of a study we conducted on the issues of the feasibility of electronic voting. I noted at that time that it would be useful for Elections Canada to conduct pilot projects on electronic voting during a by-election.

• 1910

[Translation]

I would like to be very clear about what I have in mind. The Chief Electoral Officer would only conduct an electronic voting experiment after first presenting a specific plan and consulting with this committee. In addition, such an experiment would be limited in scope. Any elector from a specific test group who wanted to participate in the experiment would have to apply in advance as well as meet the test group criteria. This information would be shared with the candidates on a regular basis, allowing for verification.

In my view, we will have to develop a greater expertise in using modern technology if we want the electoral process to remain relevant to young Canadians who are growing up with technology.

On October 28, I mentioned the importance of having local electoral associations report on their finances. I want to explain how simple this reporting would be. Every local association that has financial transactions already has someone who is authorized to handle money for the association and is responsible for keeping track of the transactions in and out of the association's account. Clearly, according to your rules, each time money goes into the account, someone is responsible for that transaction. The same holds true for each time money comes out of the account.

All that I am suggesting is that that person be required to report those occasions when money comes into the account, together with the identity of the source of those funds, and those occasions when money is paid out, together with the recipient of those funds, in accordance with the disclosure scheme underlying the statute. There would be no need to register the association or to hire an auditor. If that is too onerous, I cannot think of a simpler system.

I noted that there was discussion of the possibility of a preamble to the Canada Elections Act. If the committee is interested in pursuing this idea, I would be pleased to assist it in this regard, if asked.

I also noted the statement and recommendations made by the broadcast arbitrator, Mr. Peter Grant, who is certainly one of the best known experts in the field of radio and television broadcasting in this country.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased, as would my officials, to respond to your questions as best I can.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

[English]

We'll go to Mr. White for five minutes.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, regarding the vouching program, as you know, Reform tends to represent large rural areas. A couple of my caucus colleagues asked me about this. They said they were a bit concerned that maybe the Chief Electoral Officer wouldn't approve vouching in their area if they felt they needed it. I'm not clear on what the mechanism would be. If an area decided they needed this rural vouching, what guarantee would they have that the Chief Electoral Officer would agree to do it, and how will those judgments be made?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: At the basis of the proposal lies the need to establish the criteria under which vouching would still occur and the types of places in which it would still occur. I indicated some of the criteria in my remarks: communities with populations of less than 5,000, residential places or institutions where people have been there for a while, and one or two other criteria. I'm also indicating to you that this is not sufficient. There would need to be more consultation.

The criteria would be discussed with the advisory committee of political parties. The results of those conclusions or those discussions would be brought before this committee, and effectively, I would get a clear indication from this committee as to what the criteria would be. Then we would apply that across the land, and if anybody felt the criteria were being misapplied where they're concerned, they could make a direct appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer, through the returning officer or directly. The matter would be reviewed, and if an error had been produced, I would simply correct myself. But if I felt that an error had not occurred and that the criteria had been successfully applied, then I would simply have to say, look, we all agreed to the criteria, and this does not meet it.

• 1915

That is the only way I would do it. But it would be subject to the review of this group, and perhaps what we could do as part of the review is have people go back to their parties and ask how they feel about these criteria. This committee would not have to respond to me within an hour of the presentation. It could take weeks.

I would do an advisory committee thing first, and then I would come back here with it. Then you would have a chance to go and explore this with your parties.

Mr. Ted White: Keeping in mind that we may not always have a Chief Electoral Officer so willing to consult and deal with people, would it not be better perhaps to have a structure—similar to other things in the Elections Act—where if 10 or more electors in a certain sized district sign a request, then the Chief Electoral Officer “shall” provide a vouching system. Would something along those lines be better?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If it's a wish to narrow down what I would call the unfettered ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to make what may appear to be a unilateral decision, I have no problem with that at all.

We could be working with you in respect of that as well, perhaps establishing those areas where the criteria would definitely apply beforehand. I would be more than willing to cooperate and establish that with you.

Mr. Ted White: It just seems to me that sort of system might be perceived by voters to be a little more fair: in response to our request to you, you do it.

Moving on to the testing of new technologies, I think it's quite obvious from what I've said to previous witnesses that I share your frustration, which is coming through in your presentation, that it seems there's an unwillingness to include that provision for you in the bill.

I heard the message very clearly tonight that we really do have to change it to recognize the younger people who are coming on line and who will not be satisfied with these older ways of doing things. They want to be able to utilize the new technologies. So I certainly hope that by the time we get to the clause-by-clause and the amendments, the other side will have been won over and we'll get that put in the bill for you.

The final comment I'd like to make is with respect to riding associations and finances. I'm not quite sure why, but I just feel a little uncomfortable about this. Normally I'm all for disclosure, and I can't quite put my finger on the problem—why it is that I'm not really comfortable. Maybe it's because I don't really necessarily want my political opponents to know that I've managed to accumulate $45,000 or $50,000 toward my next election campaign. It's like going into the battle knowing what armour you have, what tanks, and so on. So I think maybe that's the basis for my discomfort. Can you make a comment about that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It certainly has to be part of the motivation, from what I can understand. And I think it's part of the motivation behind why, whenever there's any discussion about extending disclosure measures, initially people strike out in favour of the principle. But then when they look at it, either as a party, the leader, a party functionary, or a candidate, they begin to realize this is starting to reveal a lot about things that we would prefer not to see revealed. I see this is what is happening.

The problem is that with that approach, there is an incredible appetite for Canadians to know about money in politics, and there is total justification on their part.

Plus, the scheme that we have foresees that the people who participate in the funding of political parties and candidates should be known. That's why parties and candidates report their contributors. But local associations can accept donations without going through the party, without going through and waiting for an election. We don't know how much money this is. What we do know is that it's a lot of money. This is clear from the Stanbury study for the royal commission. That's why the local association issue keeps popping up.

• 1920

If it isn't resolved at this time, when you're reviewing the statute, it will have to be resolved the next time you're caught with the statute and revising it again. If you don't resolve it this time around, you may have to resolve it when a scandal occurs on this very issue in the future, because scandals seem to be the motivating factor to solve a lot of problems when they occur. Here is an opportunity to head it off before it happens.

Mr. Ted White: The point is taken.

I have a final quick one. Members of the committee here have expressed their concerns about the new technologies, saying they don't know if they're secure or if people will be frightened of them, and other problems like that. So could you give us an assurance of some sort that there would be no experimentation on unwilling voters and that it would be secure?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Number one, only those voters who are part of a target group initially could vote that way.

Number two, only those who voluntarily seek to vote that way, when we're doing a test, would actually obtain the right to do that. And they would have to do that during the campaign.

Number three, we would share with the committee the full methodology, as we did when we were working with the committee on prisoners' rights to vote and how they vote in penitentiaries. The committee at that time was satisfied that every nook and cranny, every t was crossed, and everything was done to their satisfaction. This is what we would do with this.

Right now there is a basic problem with electronic voting. I reported this, and I can understand why members of the committee are apprehensive. The technology is not quite there to ensure that the person at the start of the voting process is the elector who is supposed to be the elector. However, it's quite clear from the incredible advances in technology that have been shared with us, for example, voice recognition, which is 95% to 98% more and more certain, that all of these means are being devised. And the next generation, which is going to see a doubling of the power of computers again, within a matter of eight or nine months, will offer opportunities that we should be ready to face and exploit.

So that's what we're waiting for. But if you don't put it in the law now, I don't know how willing you, or whoever is the government, are going to be to open up the statute just for that purpose at that time.

I don't foresee undertaking a test until we have better security measures, but on the other hand, the time is now to allow it to happen and to allow us to start thinking about possible tests, so that when I meet with BC Enterprises, I'll have something solid to work with. I'm meeting with them now on this aspect.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you for appearing once again before our committee. You always manage to give us some food for thought. I have two brief comments that I want to make, as well as a few questions I'd like to ask. With your permission, I'll put them to you one after the other, to save time.

First of all, I totally support your position that electoral district association reports should be more transparent, for the benefit of the public.

Considering my age, I don't really think of myself as a dinosaur, but I nevertheless continue to have some reservations about electronic voting. Maybe I should spend a few hours with you so that you can convince me, as you yourself appear to be convinced, of the benefits of this method. The fact remains that I do have some concerns.

Having said this, I have a few questions for you, first on the issue of rural vouching. Some concerns have been voiced about this practice and I'd like to share them with you. I realize that you're aware of them, but I'd still like to hear your views on the subject.

First, we heard from Liberal Party officials. I don't generally agree much with them, but this time, I did. They told us that cases where voters had no identification could arise in highly urbanized areas like Toronto just as easily as in the example we were given.

Another argument was advanced, namely that no distinction should be made between electors. We mustn't have voters that are entitled to register one way, and others who can register another way, otherwise the registration process could be challenged in court and the initiative could be derailed entirely. I'd like to hear your views on this subject.

• 1925

I'd also like you to comment on the appearance before this committee of certain witnesses, notably Pierre-F. Côté, with whom you've always been on very good terms. He told us that one vote should equal one elector, and not one dollar should equal one vote. He argued, as did the Canadian Labour Congress, in favour of integrating a component of the Quebec model into the model for funding political parties in Canada, that is he argued for a limit on contributions and for disclosure of the names of contributors. I'd like you to comment on his position as well.

You said you weren't necessarily recommending to other countries that returning officers be appointed according to the same method employed is Canada, since this process was outdated. I agree with you completely. Since the government party doesn't appear to be particularly interested in changing the way returning officers are appointed, would you like the bill to contain provisions which would make it easier for you to dismiss returning officers who are clearly incompetent?

Finally, I'd like to know what you think of the proposal submitted by my colleague for Longueuil, which calls for financial incentives to be awarded to increase the number of women in politics.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If I've understood clearly the gist of your first question concerning vouching in urban areas, you maintain that if an exception was allowed by the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, than an exception could also be made for voters in urban areas. My answer would have to be that yes, this could happen. We could bring in more flexible measures instead of saying, as the rule now does, that this process applies only to specific geographical areas. It's easy to see how it could apply in certain institutions, as I mentioned earlier. In our discussion with members and with political parties, it's clear that a vouching process is possible. You understand what I'm saying. I'm in favour of vouching, provide the practice can be regulated. I wouldn't want this practice to be extended to the entire voting process. It would lend itself to easily to fraud. Vouching must be permitted under highly controlled circumstances, in controlled locations and according to very specific criteria. Too often, we've seen this become nothing more than a bargaining system. That would lead to problems far worse than any we might encounter with electronic voting systems.

As for the comments by my colleague Pierre-F. Côté concerning a limit on...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A limit on contributions, on the one hand, and disclosure of the source of these contributions, on the other hand. In Quebec, as you know, the only contributions allowed are those made by individuals.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The Lortie Commission which reported in March of 1992 was created primarily in reaction to this phenomenon. One Conservative MP from Quebec whose name escapes me - I believe he's dead now—was pressuring Mr. Mulroney on this issue. I think his name was Mr. Gérin.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): He isn't dead. He's alive and kicking.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, that's good to hear.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: He deserves it.

The Royal Commission was established for this purpose. It concluded that such a system was impractical because the parties and certain members who had testified at its hearings had argued that their financial needs were too great and could not be met solely through contributions from individuals.

Why do we use the designations “corporate person” or “personne morale” and “natural person”? I really don't know. After all, you and I are, above all, moral persons. Why refer to corporations that have no soul as “personnes morales”? I don't know. It's an absolutely absurd designation. In any event, the Commission came to this conclusion and did not include a recommendation to this effect in its report. It did issue some recommendations concerning disclosure in relation to local associations, leadership races and so forth. I continue to trumpet these recommendations every time I make an appearance before your committee.

• 1930

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What about the limit on contributions?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Under the current federal system, glass ceilings were imposed because of public disclosure considerations. The largest contribution made to a single candidate totaled $50,000. The largest contribution ever made to a political party was a $114,000 contribution received from a union. Next in line was a $113,000 contribution to a party from an industry or company. Generally speaking, Canadians have no problems with contributions of this nature.

The reason why I haven't ever taken a stand on this matter is that the Royal Commission was struck precisely to look into this. When it released its report, I noted that it hadn't been very eager to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. That's why I never took a stand on this matter.

It should also be remembered that in Quebec, political parties receive permanent funding on a year-round basis, whereas this is not the case at the federal level. Indeed, at the federal level, political parties are funded through the election expenses refunds they receive, and then only every four years.

Financial requirements are much greater at the federal level, and the feeling is that individual contributions are simply not sufficient to meet these needs.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm amazed by what you just said. Funding efforts continue during the four years between federal elections, just as they do at the provincial level.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's not quite the same thing.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Political parties and riding associations continue to raise funds between elections. This happens at both the federal and provincial levels.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, but it's not a matter of the government providing the funding. I'm talking about the government providing funding to meet needs.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Tax receipts are issued for contributions collected during fund-raising campaigns between elections.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I agree, but parties are not directly reimbursed for all expenses incurred between elections.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The Quebec government also reimburses part of the expenses incurred by parties in Quebec.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Expenses incurred during election campaigns.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't really see the difference.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think there is quite a difference. In Quebec, as I understand it, all expenses incurred by parties between elections are covered by the government. Maybe someone could verify that for me while I continue.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, why not.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In the meantime, we could talk about the appointment of returning officers. Could you repeat your comment for my benefit?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If the government won't agree to appointments based on merit, then at least it could agree to the inclusion of a provision authorizing you to dismiss a returning officer who is clearly incompetent.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Quite frankly, I would prefer to have no authority over this at all, instead of just a tiny bit. I would find myself in a very difficult position if the only authority I had was to dismiss returning officers who had been appointed by someone else. This goes against the fundamental tenets of our system. As a rule, the one who makes the appointment has the right to dismiss the appointee. In my opinion, we'd be setting ourselves up for some problems if we were to adopt a provision like this. Regardless of the person appointed, the problem would remain, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the person's ability. The basic problem that I'm trying to resolve with this recommendation would remain and you have clearly identified this yourselves.

• 1935

Some committee members maintain that the system works well, while others, who represent the four opposition parties, claim the contrary. There is a reason for this: you don't feel that you are being treated fairly by returning officers. This feeling wouldn't change and that's what I want to change. It's not complicated. That's why I persist in putting forward the same recommendation.

As for awarding financial incentives to parties fielding women candidates, I've been following and reading about this debate. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations on this subject which I supported. The basic issue is whether or not to provide incentives based on the number of candidates fielded, or based on the number of candidates who are actually elected.

The other issue that no one has talked about is whether the candidate, and not the party, should be rewarded by having her election expenses reimbursed. I'm not sure what the best approach would be. I understand the pros and cons, but this is certainly not an issue that I would object to or to which I am opposed for intellectual reasons.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Madam Bakopanos.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

I'd like to comment on what you've just said, Mr. Kingsley. I think the rewards should go the party because the problem originates with the party, and not with the candidate. That's my view.

I would like to discuss further your recommendation calling for local electoral district associations to report their financial transactions. Are you talking about all political parties, whether registered or not, and all lobby groups that view themselves more or less as political parties? Is your recommendation wide-reaching or is it limited to the political parties currently represented in the House of Commons? This distinction has some major implications, in my view.

During election campaigns, voters make more than just monetary contributions. Some give of their time. Should these kinds of contributions also be taken into consideration? I think that would be one way of getting around the measure you're proposing. Why are we pressing this point so strongly? Will it result in more transparency when it comes to the financial transactions of political parties?

This brings me back to my initial question. Does this recommendation target all political parties, lobby groups and lobbyists? There are many ways of getting around your recommendation if the contribution isn't made within the framework of a political party such as the Liberal Party, which has long had its own internal rules.

In Quebec, we also comply with internal party rules. My treasurer must file a report once a year with the party on the transactions in and out of our association's account. He must have a receipt for every expense incurred. Since Liberal members in Quebec must already abide by these rules, it would probably be a relatively simple matter for them to submit a report of this kind to the Chief Electoral Officer. However, this wouldn't necessarily be true of all federal Liberal Party members. No doubt internal parties rules would have to be amended accordingly.

• 1940

With respect to electronic voting, I'm also somewhat of a dinosaur in my way of thinking. An electronic voting experiment was conducted at the municipal level in Montreal. The biggest problem encountered, if I'm not mistaken, was in the percentage of ballots rejected. Voter identification wasn't the problem. However, ballots were rejected because of some small mark not visible to the naked eye. The machine rejected the ballot, even though the voter had clearly marked his choice. That worries me a great deal.

As you know, recounts were ordered following two municipal elections in Montreal because the margin of victory was extremely slim.

That does it for my questions. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Regarding your first question, the scheme would apply only to the 10 registered parties, that is to those enjoying full registered party status, and not to others that are unlikely to have a local electoral district association. This would also simplify the process.

You said that in because of your party's internal rules, you had an agent responsible for all transactions.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: A treasurer, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Fine, a treasurer then. You also said that this wasn't the case in all provinces for the same national party. That's quite normal. It all depends on how things are set up.

One thing is clear to me. Even if the party doesn't have internal rules for electoral district associations, the ridings themselves should have rules in place respecting financial transactions, that is rules spelling out who is authorized to receive money, spend that money, sign the local association's cheques and so forth. All we want to know is who that person is within the association, if there is a transaction of some kind made. Otherwise, we don't require any further information. Whether the association handles one or 500 transactions, we're asking that the agent report on each of these transactions to the Chief Electoral Officer. The number of transactions isn't important. We're not talking about a complicated process. All the agent would need to do is copy his own files for the purposes of making a report.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: May I interrupt the witness for a moment, Mr. Chairman?

What happens to the information submitted? That's what I would like to know. It would be a simple matter for my association to file a report, but do you have measures in place to control illegal transactions? It's easy to produce a receipt when... I'm not saying that we should encourage fraud, but once you have this information in hand, what steps do you intend to take to control how the money flows in and flows out of the association's account? Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The legislation would contain a provision to deal with such matters. This information will be posted immediately on Elections Canada's Internet site so that Canadians can see what's happening for themselves.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Will that information be posted every year?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, every year. The public will be able to see where the money is coming from, and where it is going.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: But riding associations will still be required to file a report with you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's correct. We won't be auditing these associations, but we will be checking to see if the numbers in their reports jibe.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I see. I turn over the figures to you and you publish them. However, you have no way of sanctioning those who aren't acting entirely above board.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, but it's much the same as when you file reports after each election. We publish the report that you send to us.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, but you check the information submitted in connection with an election. I'm sorry, but I think we're getting into a debate.

[English]

I am sorry. I did not want to have a debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That just part of the overall discussion process.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Right.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Obviously, we verify the information, albeit only summarily. We don't go into the details. We would do an even less detailed review of these reports...

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: The rules are very specific.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: ...because we would rely on your opponents and on Canadians.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: There's more to it than that. In the section of the Elections Act dealing with election expenses, you have more flexibility when it comes to declaring that an election was not conducted properly or that expenses are inadmissible under the terms of the legislation. You do not have this authority in respect of an electoral district association. Even if you did have the power to require these associations to make a report... Do you understand what I'm saying? Under the Elections Act, you have more authority when it comes to election expenses than in the case of association expenses. All you can do is release this information for the benefit of the public.

[English]

It's an interesting debate for me.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Elections Financing, Elections Canada): Yes, I think the reports of the local associations would be viewed in the same light as the political party fiscal returns—the annual returns. As you say, there's not a precise definition of what can be spent or for what purpose.

• 1945

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: That's right.

Ms. Janice Vézina: It's simply the reporting requirements.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: That's another question then.

The party reports from the associations too, so now you're asking for a second reporting, in terms of political associations at another level. That's why we're back to square one and my original question about political parties, because political parties do report.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But with all due respect, they do not report everything that is going on at the level of the association.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: It's the same in terms of the associations too, Mr. Kingsley. If you just want to inform the public...I'm not encouraging fraud, but I don't see the purpose—and I'll be very honest—except to inform the public. You don't have any other powers after that.

In an election campaign you have a lot more powers, in terms of assuring whether that candidate sits as a member of Parliament, if there has been fraud. You have much more of an opportunity to check the items that are submitted, because the law is a lot more limited in terms of the types of expenses you would normally allow in an election campaign.

Unless you find ways of also ensuring that, in terms of the reporting in the association, it's an exercise in futility in some ways. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think the whole purpose of this rests with the very idea that Canadians have a right to know where the money's coming from for everybody who intervenes in the process.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I'm not disagreeing.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The only way they can find out about local associations is if they have to report. They don't have that obligation now. Not every local association gets its money from the centre, by far.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I agree. We'll continue this, though.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to your last question on electronic voting, it's important to keep in mind that this term is applied to two different things. You can get electronic voting in a polling station when you jab your ballot into a machine and it electronically processes it. That is electronic vote facilitation within the existing system. That's not what we're talking about with the trials that would take place.

With electronic voting, as foreseen by that study, a Canadian would vote from an ATM, their cellular phone, their website, their personal computer, or whatever other device. That is why I was saying technology is not quite advanced sufficiently to ensure that the person who is at that station is who they say they are. But nothing disallows putting it into the statute now, to allow it to happen when that comes around. Then we will come here and propose to you how this system will work with fail-safe mechanisms, on a low scale.

We're not saying that for a by-election all 60,000 electors would have that right. We could be talking about 1,000 or 1,500 electors, perhaps starting with people who are in shut-in situations to begin with. So it's a very different ball of wax.

Thank you.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I want to thank Mr. Kingsley and his entire team for their availability in conjunction with our review. I have three short questions for the witnesses.

On the subject of national financing, I know that the Lortie Commission, as you mentioned, didn't pursue this matter much and that it did not view donations by private corporations as anti- democratic. In your opinion, when a union makes a $114,0000 contribution to a political party, is it hindering the democratic process? That's my first question.

Secondly, as you well know, much has been said about the fairness of the restrictions on advertising by third parties. In your opinion, is the Government of Canada viewed as a third party for the purposes of this legislation? In other words, do the bill's provisions limit the amount that the government itself can spend on advertising during an election campaign—advertising which, according to the actual definition of "third party election advertising" in section 319, means the transmission of a message, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated? That's my second question.

• 1950

Thirdly, for the first time, the legislation would require the disclosure not only of the names of contributors to a party or a candidate, which is already a requirement, but also of their addresses. Why was the disclosure of contributors's addresses deemed important? Have problems arisen which warrant disclosure of this information? Has the Privacy Commissioner been asked whether he has any concerns about this provision? Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: First of all, as far as the national financing scheme is concerned, and as for the fact that corporations, unions and other groups can make monetary contributions, personally I don't think we'll still be seeing this in 15 or 20 years' time. Only individuals will be allowed to make contributions.

Mr. André Harvey: Are you hoping then that the government will participate more in the financing of election campaigns?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Perhaps, or maybe there's a way to convince individuals to contribute more. A new scheme could be instituted to encourage individuals to contribute more. Perhaps a 75% rebate could be granted, up to a maximum of $2,000 or $3,000, or perhaps two thirds of the contribution could be rebated. Instead of reimbursing 75%, 50% or 25% of the amount of the contribution to the various parties up to a maximum of $1,150, we could devise a system whereby on the first $2,000 in contributions, two thirds would be rebated. Some kind of incentive is needed to encourage people to contribute. We're not talking about large sums of money and this would be one way of showing public support. We haven't really looked at all of these formulas. The Royal Commission didn't examine all of the specifics or consider every possible alternative solution.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Kingsley, was it because of a survey that had been conducted that your stated, when you last appeared before the committee, that Canadians would be willing to contribute more, financially speaking, to the process of democracy in a general election? Did you in fact make that statement?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't recall making a statement like that at the time. Perhaps you're recalling an earlier appearance I might have made, but I didn't say that last time around. I was probably reacting to a survey conducted following the 1997 general election. I could always check the survey findings again. This formula hasn't really been considered. I think that there are alternatives to contributions by corporations, unions and other groups and that eventually, our focus will be in this direction.

Now then, I may be completely off the mark, because there are some people in Canada today that want the limits or ceilings on party and candidate spending to be lifted entirely. If that were to happen, we would be creating a system in which financial requirements would be tremendous. Spending would increase exponentially. We've seen it happen in the United States. New York Mayor Guiliani is now building up an $18 million US war chest to fund his upcoming campaign. Some candidates for the US Senate spend $30 million US on their campaigns. If we eliminate spending limits, financial requirements increase significantly, as we have noted in the US. The latter deal with this problem by distinguishing between hard money and soft money. In the case of hard money, they have an artificial system in place for controlling the money that flows in and, supposedly, the money that flows out. No such controls are in place for soft money. And that's where the money is. That's what happens the moment ceilings are lifted.

Getting back to your question, this could be one solution to address the situation in Canada, if ever a decision was made to Americanize the Canadian system. There's always a danger of that happening.

• 1955

With respect to third party advertising, is the government authorized to spend money? Treasury Board has laid out rules respecting advertising by the federal government during an election campaign. The rules more or less state that a department cannot advertise in a manner that supports the government party's efforts to get re-elected.

It is not the Chief Electoral Officer's job to monitor departments to see if in fact they comply with this rule. I would imagine that this is the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Perhaps this is something that you might want to look into at some point.

As for the provision requiring the disclosure of addresses, we asked for its inclusion because on verifying contributors' addresses, we observed that it was possible to play around with people's names. For example, André Harvey could sign his name as A. Harvey one time, and as André R. Harvey another time, if his middle name is Robert. Or he could sign his name as Robert A. Harvey. This is one and the same individual, but the computer thinks they are three separate people. If the address is given, the computer will cross-reference the data and provide 99% confirmation that we're dealing with one single person. It would be very clear to us then that a single person was responsible for three contributions totaling $100,000: a $33,000 contribution to the Liberal Party, a $33,000 contribution to the Conservative Party, a $33,000 contribution to the NDP and a $1,000 contribution to the Bloc Québécois.

Some members: Ha, ha!

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I had no choice, because I was up to $99,000.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You're cheap, André.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I had to slot this $1,000 in somewhere.

You were asking if we had checked with the Privacy Commissioner. That's a question for the Privy Council Office which was responsible for the bill on behalf of the minister. Checking with the Privacy Commissioner was not Elections Canada's responsibility. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, I have to report that notwithstanding my efforts, we're consistently getting 10-minute rounds here. I want to ask that questions be reasonably targeted. I would like to see a reduction in the cascading of questions. All the parties have had a kick at a 10-minute round here, except for the New Democratic Party. But I will try to be strict, so we can get some smaller issues dealt with, since this will probably be Mr. Kingsley's last appearance before we get to clause-by-clause consideration.

We'll hear from Mr. Solomon, Ms. Catterall, Mr. Anders, and Mr. Pickard, for five minutes each.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you. I only get five?

The Chair: I'm sorry, maybe I'll have to owe you, but they always were five-minute rounds.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): You're good enough to do it in a concise clear way, John.

The Chair: Let's see how we do, rather than argue about it and waste another minute. Carry on and we'll see where we are at minute five.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Kingsley, rural vouching is something that's quite important to Saskatchewan, because when you're farming, you may have to go to the polling station on the tractor or the seeder and you may have no ID with you.

Could you just inform us clearly, on your recommendation to come forward on rural vouching, if an amendment to this act is required to enable you to do that? Are you going to do this? I'm not sure of the status of your recommendation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Bill C-2 does away with vouching. That's what you're concerned about—-

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: —-as is the New Democratic Party. This has been flagged at the advisory committee as well.

The proposal we've put forward to you would allow its reintroduction, in accordance with criteria established and interpreted by the Chief Electoral Officer in law. In reality, it would be established through consultation with the parties and with you, the members of this committee. So there would be an opportunity to maintain vouching in the kind of situation you're talking about.

• 2000

Mr. John Solomon: My question, though, is this: is an amendment to this act required to enable you to do this?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: So we're looking at an amendment.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, which is why I deposited the proposal to you when I first appeared. I saw it was not in Bill C-2 and I knew it was your preoccupation.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

The second issue relates to reporting by constituency associations. Are you suggesting that just the tax credit money is accounted for or all moneys?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: All moneys.

Mr. John Solomon: Are there many constituency associations that collect tax credit money between elections?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They cannot do that. They can only do it through the party.

Mr. John Solomon: That's right.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But there are people who are quite willing to forego the tax credit, which is only a maximum of $1,100, to make a $20,000 contribution to the local riding association.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Name them. We'd like to know!

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: In the NDP, we are in a very accountable situation because we do an annual statement, which is audited by an auditor. I know that in Saskatchewan we turn them over to our Saskatchewan section in the federal party, so they know what income we have, what outgo we have, and where the money has gone. I don't see it being a problem in terms of a national situation, although I do have some reservations from the perspective that if you're a member of the NDP, you have access to our financial statements—it's not a problem to get access. I do have some hesitancy about giving my financial statements to the Liberal Party or the Reform Party; if they want to buy a membership and join my party, they would have access to them automatically.

But you'd have to provide us with some reassurances as to how this would be used, as to whether it would just be for your purposes or whether it's a public transaction.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't want it. I will take it and put it on the website the day I get it. I just want Canadians to know what's happening. You know your party goes from federal to provincial and shoves money to and fro—

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: —and local associations do the same in your party.

When I'm provided with your federal snapshot, I don't know where the money was. When I'm provided with your federal snapshot, I don't know if you took $3 billion and moved it out just before the snapshot was taken. I don't know if all the money was back from the various places where it had been in the provincial associations. That's a concern. It's one concern that I'm sharing with the committee.

Mr. John Solomon: Would you want a report in a P and L form, a profit and loss form, or a cashflow form, or a balance sheet form? How would you want this document?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We would devise a very simple form that would tell us this: cash in, cash out, how much, the date, and the source.

Mr. John Solomon: On an annual basis?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, on an annual basis, and it would be from whoever is authorized in that riding association to receive money and to disburse money. Even if you don't have rules, I cannot believe that anyone in a local association would allow anybody to spend money out of that pot. There has to be one person who is authorized to receive and one person who is authorized to get the money. All I want is to hear from them.

Mr. John Solomon: I have two other questions, if I may. One is in relation to the voters list. We've had complaints regarding high turnover polls where there are apartments. I'm wondering if you could comment, Mr. Kingsley. In polls in Canada, just how is the voters list in high turnover polls—basically apartment polls or condo polls? Is your organization getting a grip on a reasonable voters list in these particular polls?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

What we do is we send out the lists from the register for the riding. The returning officer has identified high-mobility areas with us—and we're going to get even better at this. I want this information shared with candidates in the future, and with parties. They will identify high-rise apartments where the turnover is high. They will identify residential institutions where, because of age, people turn over—die—on a frequent basis, and therefore there's quite a rapid turnover. Plus, we will identify new residential areas—a street that didn't exist that now does. We have different procedures to attack each one of those. We still send out notice of confirmation to the name and address, but if that person has moved, the notice still goes to the address. The notice says, if there's anything wrong here, get in touch with us. Well, the name is wrong. They're supposed to get in touch with us.

• 2005

On top of that, we put a kit in those high-rise apartments. We attach it to their door or whatever. It says, if you want to register or change the registration, here's how to do it, and there's a kit attached. We do the same thing with respect to new residential areas. We drop off the kits.

We even send people out in pairs to register people on the spot in high-rise areas. It's almost a door-to-door enumeration. This is called “targeted revision” at Elections Canada. It's a technology and a system that we've developed since 1992, and we've been perfecting it, in the 1993 general election, the 1997 general election, and in all the by-elections in the meantime, which is why you don't hear of problems when a federal event is being run by the federal authorities who run elections.

Our ultimate fail-safe, which is a pre-requirement when you have something like this, is polling day registration. You have gone even further by introducing advance polling day registration, which allows for all tentative mistakes to be corrected.

Mr. John Solomon: A final question, if I may, Mr. Chair, regarding—

The Chair: You're up to seven minutes and 50 seconds. I don't know why we're getting these 10-minute rounds tonight.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Because it's our last chance at Mr. Kingsley.

The Chair: All right.

If I may ask you to ask your question briefly and ask Mr. Kingsley to respond briefly, I'll accept your question.

Mr. John Solomon: In regard to this recommendation for having the other national broadcasting companies like CTV and Global provide free time, not just the CBC, is that workable and is it doable?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If Mr. Grant told you it was workable and it was doable, I'm 100% behind him. That man knows 50,000 times more than I do about broadcasting.

The Chair: Great question and great answer.

I'll go now to Ms. Catterall, and then to Mr. Anders and Mr. Pickard.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): You're asking me to make some tough choices here, Mr. Chairman. I'll do my best.

On the issue of better use of technology in elections, I don't consider myself a dinosaur, by any means, but I do know that people like to be able to verify who they voted for, they like to verify that their vote is valid, and they like to have a chance to indicate a spoiled ballot and do it again if they've made a mistake.

Secondly, I have a real problem with any kind of pilot project in which the participants self-identify. Then it introduces an immediate bias, and the other bias is towards those who are able to participate in this way unless there are significant measures to overcome the bias.

But for the purposes of this act, it seems to me that the Chief Electoral Officer came before this committee and basically sought the agreement of the committee to proceed with some pilot projects. I assumed when he did so that there was authority under the act for him to proceed with those pilot projects, that it did not need a change in the act. Was I wrong? Does the act need to be changed for you to use electronic voting at any time?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The act does need to be changed if I'm going to proceed with any kind of testing of electronic voting as I've described it, that is to say, remote from a polling station. That's clear. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I would have just come along and made a proposal to you. But that is a pre-requirement—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to me that was the time for this committee to have a look at this, Mr. Chair.

Secondly, in terms of the ridings reporting, in Ontario you already get a report on any contributions to riding associations because the only way they're receipted is through the provincial wing of the party. Meaning no disrespect, I have to ask what business it is of the Chief Electoral Officer how people spend their money during elections when that expenditure has nothing to do with elections.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Between elections, you mean.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, between elections.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Not during elections.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, between elections. Pardon me. I misspoke myself.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I still got the gist of your question.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: For my association, that's the majority of its spending.

• 2010

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's a basic difference in philosophy that is joined here. If money is put into the process for political purposes and we know the sources, and if you're saying that for Ontario ridings in the Liberal party all contributions are known and identified through the central party reporting, and reporting from which riding or to which riding the money went, that's very good. It goes partway. But once that money is there, it's still money that is meant to participate in the electoral process, and how money that is put in the process for political purposes is spent is part of the public's right to know. That's my basic philosophy.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'd say three-quarters of the money that comes into my riding association is receipted through and in accordance with the limits in the act as to what needs to be reported, and three-quarters of it does not get spent for electoral purposes. So what right or what interest does the Chief Electoral Officer have in how that money is spent?

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: It's not the Chief Electoral Officer, whether he's—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: This is the act you're asking us to use.

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: Yes, but the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't want this for himself, or eventually herself. The Chief Electoral Officer wants this for Canadians so that they will—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But has that something to do with elections?

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: Well, it was put in the process for electoral purposes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have one final question, on the electors list. As you know, I have had concerns from the beginning about how the permanent voters list will evolve over time. Certain groups in society might be more likely to drop off the list.

I gather there's no regular process in terms of analysing demographically any patterns of change in the list. There wasn't after the Ontario electoral event. How would you feel about a provision in the act that would require the Chief Electoral Officer to do that after each electoral event?

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: I would agree with it.

I would also tell you that people cannot fall off the list once they're on the list. They have to ask to be removed, or they have to die; otherwise they stay on the list.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Are you telling me you're automatically going to find everybody who moves?

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: They may not be at the right address, but this is where they get the notice of confirmation for the person who was there before them, and that triggers off their introducing the correction of the mistake.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But it doesn't trigger off your finding the person who has moved.

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: It's only if they moved and the income tax form told us they had moved, and they agreed—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's my five minutes.

Mr. Jean-Paul Kingsley: —or only if they changed their driver's licence. Those are the two sources we have for moves. If they're in such straits that they have neither of those two things, then the only way is when they get the notice of confirmation that is not addressed to them but to somebody else. That is when they have to move and get registered at that address. But I can assure you that this is something we can trace, and it's something I would be willing to start tracing to see if there are people who are beginning to drop off.

But it's also important to remember that for the last six days of the campaign, we turn our messages around and no longer say, get revised onto the list. What we say is, go and vote; you can register on polling day. We change our message overnight and say, go and vote; bring pieces of ID and you can vote. That puts them right back on the list the moment they do that. So we have a very good fail-safe system.

The issue that is not completely finished is, does everybody who's not on the list, who can come on the list, get on the list? That is the issue, whether it's new Canadians or new 18-year-olds. Those are the people I really worry about, and they're the ones for whom we've established special programs.

I can tell you that for kids, new 18-year-olds, even though we have a fantastic communication program with a very good letter, there's a 50% take-up rate, the same percentage as vote. That's not good enough. So we're going to revise that program and report back to you when you come to our offices to be briefed on the register of electors. We will hold nothing from you.

• 2015

The Chair: To clarify, when you talk about people being on or off the list, you're really talking about the register of electors, out of which the list is created at election time.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's right. I mixed the terms, and I apologize. It's a national register, and it's broken down into 301 lists.

The Chair: Yes, and somebody cannot fall off the list unless they die or pull their own name.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Or move and get lost.

The Chair: No, as I understand it, they don't fall off the list if they move. The name stays there with an incorrect address. They continue on the register.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

The Chair: They simply don't have a proper place to vote yet.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What happens when somebody new registers at that address? Do they still stay on?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. I recently lived that. They must be removed through a specific gesture taken on their behalf.

The Chair: Okay.

Next is Mr. Anders, and then Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is with regard to the enforcement of blackouts. I wonder how you would plan to enforce blackouts with regard to weekly or monthly publications. If they happen to have taken an ad and they're under an obligation to run it, would you go after junior copy people in the newspapers in those situations? How would you plan to enforce that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That provision is one that exists at the present time. What I would like to do is come back in writing to the committee, because frankly I don't remember how it's handled. But I do know it's handled, because that exists right now with the blackouts. There are periodicals right now.

So, Mr. Anders, I would come back to the chair and provide you with an answer on that issue about how the enforcement takes place on the blackout for those kinds of publications. Okay?

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. I'd like to say that Mr. Grant, to whom you've given kudos with regard to his presentation, said situations like this were very difficult. Anyhow, I'll move on to my second question.

There was some discussion this evening with regard to soft money. You talked about how in the U.S. there's hard money, and they pretend to control that, and soft money. There's soft money in Canadian elections too. It's food for campaign office workers, phone banks donated by insurance companies, realtors, law firms or private individuals, and drivers who take people to the polls on election day for the GOTV, the get-out-the-vote effort.

There seems to have been some concern tonight with regard to soft money. How would you possibly track that, or do you propose tracking that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Do you mean tracking the kinds of soft money examples or soft services aspects you've given in the Canadian system?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes. It gets to the whole issue of the ceilings. We've talked in this committee about establishing limits on how much hard money can be contributed to campaigns. What I'm getting at is that there are all sorts of things that are done on campaigns right now that all parties engage in, in terms of soft money. There's actually little or no ability that I can see to track that, so why bother?

Ms. Janice Vézina: The examples you've given cover either volunteer labour situations or their contribution of goods or services to a campaign, which, if it's involved in the direct promotion or opposition of a candidate or party, is considered a contribution and an election expense. These items are covered.

There is a limit as well on the contribution of food for the campaign offices in terms of whether or not it's considered an election expense. So if the person is not in the business of providing food, is not a caterer, for example, the limit in Bill C-2 now is at $200 for those types of donations.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think we sometimes act like a dog chasing its tail, and there's a great deal of futility in terms of some of the exercises.

I'll move on to my third question, with regard to this whole idea of the receipts and whether or not money is being given to constituency associations, and being able to track it.

• 2020

I heard a number tossed around this evening. About three-quarters of the money given to a local association is receipted, and one would assume that one-quarter of it is not receipted. That's certainly not the way it works in my riding association. Every Reformer I know wants their receipt. They would like to get rid of the tax receipting system and the credit system entirely, but, by golly, if the system is the way it is now, they're going to make sure they get their receipt.

You obviously have a concern about this. What examples do you have and what suspicions can you give us with regard to the money that's going to associations in non-election years that isn't being receipted and that in some insidious way is affecting politics? You must have something to go on here. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking for it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think it's important to remember that the royal commission did a study on this. It was Professor Stanbury who identified that there were literally millions of dollars out there, and this was corroborated by some of the witnesses from the Liberal Party. Quite frankly, if there are millions of dollars out there—and I must assume there are because this is what the report says and what others have corroborated—I think it behooves us to understand that there must be some influence being exercised by those millions. People just don't have that kind of money for no purpose.

Do I have precise information about a case where something occurred? Obviously not. I have no reports. No one is obligated to provide me with any report. All I have is what I can build on from what has been said around this table, and already justification enough is being produced.

If it's possible to take money from a federal association and move it to provincial associations, then what kind of picture of the federal situation am I giving Canadians? If it's possible to receive a quarter of the money in a local association and three-quarters is being receipted...a quarter of $40,000 is $10,000. If three-quarters is being given for political purposes but is being spent for non-political purposes, then what is it being spent on?

The Chair: Just to correct the record, the adjective used earlier was “electoral” purposes. Ms. Catterall used the adjective “electoral”. I assume she meant “elections”. You've now used the adjective “political”. Clearly, money given to a political association is...[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: [Technical difficulty—Editor]...a clear indication that it's not being spent entirely for that purpose. My view is that Canadians have a right to know that, period, clear and simple.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like to enter it in the record, if I may, that I can't think of anybody who has ever contributed to my campaign that I know of who has not asked for a tax receipt. I can think of rare cases where individuals have given more than they qualify for in terms of a tax receipt. But it's a new one for me. I know it must go on because there has been some discussion here at the table. I don't fear it, because I'm not the one who has to worry if other people have concerns about it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders. I think maybe some of us have forgotten about the bake sale that raises money for a group. You don't give a receipt with the banana bread, but you do raise 50¢ or $1. Some of the money that comes in to riding associations is not tax receipted. I think that's maybe what Ms. Catterall was thinking about.

In any event, we'll now turn to Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley, for being here.

I'm going to touch base on the last area you just mentioned and deal with two others. The first one is that looking at moneys that would go to specific candidates, be they women or any other specific candidates, I have some difficulty when we're spending taxpayers' dollars for the promotion of an individual candidate or a group of candidates, however you wish to look at that. I think we're talking—I don't think it's in place yet; I don't think the proposition is even on the table—of potentially remunerating parties that have a certain percentage of women running. To me that seems totally biased against any independent candidate. I think there is a problem with that where you are putting a party candidate in a better financial position than an independent candidate. There are many issues surrounding that, by the way, but I'd like your comment on that.

• 2025

Secondly, I think the cost of running election campaigns in large urban areas is very different from the cost of running election campaigns in rural areas. Just to give you a quick idea, take the city of Windsor versus my riding of Chatham—Kent Essex. The city of Windsor candidate can advertise in the Windsor Star, share expenses with the other city of Windsor candidate, and reach everybody in the riding in one newspaper advertisement. They can open one office, which would kind of cover the whole city of Windsor, and they have a very nice package where a few lawn signs really cover all the streets.

I'm in what are small towns in rural Canada, and I have the city of Chatham. In the past I have run five campaign offices. I've had the expense of putting telephones in those campaign offices and having them manned by people, which is an expense but it's getting more people into the system. As I look at it, if I want to advertise in the local newspapers, I have to use 10 different local newspapers. All the logistics of running a campaign in rural Canada are very different from urban Canada, but there's no consideration in that regard. I wondered why that may not be the case.

The third point I want to make is with regard to the discussion we just had. Maybe I'll leave that. You can answer those two. If we're within the five minutes, Mr. Chair, I'll ask my third question. Otherwise, I'll pass.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When you rejoin the issue of parties getting larger reimbursements if they field so many female candidates and so many get elected, I view this not as a quota system but as a form of inducement to get society to move faster toward the desirable goal. My concern has always been with quotas as opposed to measures to incite. I know this debate is quite divisive and it's one with which I have sympathy, but it's one on which I've never made a direct recommendation.

Now, with regard to the cost of running campaigns in rural—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: If it's a woman candidate, you pay more money, but if it's a man candidate, you don't pay as much. How does that work?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If it's an independent candidate and it's a woman, she won't get paid more, because she has no party. It's the party that's going to get the bigger reimbursement.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That is unfair.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It does introduce an element of inequity.

With regard to the other issue of the cost of running campaigns in rural versus urban, I'm sure that some urban people will tell you that the rent they're paying is exorbitant, and therefore it should be more. But there are criteria whereby in certain types of rural ridings the ante is upped with regard to the limit. It has to be a sparsely populated and a large geographic riding. Personal expenses have no limit as well. So long as you haven't reached the spending limit, they're reimbursed at 50%.

But you may feel that doesn't go far enough, and this is the place to discuss this. I don't have a specific recommendation, because I'm not getting complaints. Yours is the first one I've received about this point. So this is the proper place to raise it.

• 2030

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I just wish to point out that because I'm in a rural riding, I need an army of people to help run my campaign and do the kinds of things needed. So within the political contribution side of it, to help train those people, to help get those people in place, to help do those things, we do spend money in order to help people understand the process and the jobs that have to be done.

In some cases that may not be considered an electoral expenditure. I do very much consider that an electoral expenditure on my part, because these people have to run the campaign offices and do all the different things that have to be done within the riding. They're an integral part. Therefore, is that direct expenditure or indirect expenditure?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I was just told training moneys are not election expenses, but I did recommend that they be, so my recommendation was in favour of what you wanted. This committee is the one to act on that. I haven't put forward all of the recommendations I made—I made over 80—but that's one of them.

The Chair: The training of the workers is sometimes known as the pizza burden in some parts of the country.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I have some quick bullets the Chief Electoral Officer and the officials may be able to help with. My list of course is longer than my colleagues would allow me time to put, but....

In clause 66, do we envisage more than one registered party endorsing the same person? The bill now appears to envisage one party endorsing one person. What if two parties endorse the same person? Can that happen? Has it ever happened, and could it happen under this legislation?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It has not happened, and the construct of the statute is such that our interpretation of it is that one person can only be supported by one party officially.

The Chair: Well, it says in clause 68 that a registered party can only endorse one candidate, but nowhere in the bill does it say two or three parties couldn't endorse the same candidate. When it comes to constructing the ballot, the question is, if you had two parties endorsing the same candidate, would you have to put both parties in the endorsation line or in the party line?

You may not have an answer to that. I direct your officials to that. I'm sure you don't have an answer tonight.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As a matter of fact we do.

The Chair: Oh, good! And it is...?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it's because we've been thinking.

If you ask the question of two, you ask the question of 12.

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: How do you get 12 names on a ballot for a party? What I'm trying to hint at is there are problems that clearly indicate the statute was built for one party supporting one candidate.

Unofficial things can take place. You can get two or three leaders who signed a paper for a particular candidate. But when that candidate comes to the office to register, he's going to face one question: “Which one is your party?” You can't have all three on the ballot. That's not how the law is structured.

The Chair: I'll simply point out the statute doesn't say that. You may wish to infer it, and that may be your intention, but as I've read it, I don't see a barrier to that. You say the size of the piece of paper or the ballot is the limitation and any idiot should be able to determine this, but if there isn't a prohibition and if a party can endorse a candidate.... I don't see a prohibition on two, but if that is your view, our members will take that as your view.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We're having an intellectual discussion here. This is not an interpretation of the statute. This is how we see the statute being constructed.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Because the other issues—and I will go very quickly—

The Chair: No, you don't have to go through the others. If you think it's clear, that's fine with me.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But the question is, which party can spend money for that candidate? Maybe you can help me with the statute on that one.

The Chair: I have no idea. If there isn't a restriction, it's a free country. That would be my answer.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'll see in court.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Are you saying double expenditure could go on one candidate?

The Chair: I have no idea.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's very clearly a problem.

The Chair: Anyway, I'll go on to the next question. Must the deposit a candidate makes be cash? Can it be a cheque? What specie must the deposit take?

• 2035

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It can be cash, it can be cheque—it's got to be Canadian currency.

The Chair: That's great.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It can even be NSF if they eventually make up for it.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

Clause 71 has to do with the nomination, the formal nomination, of a candidate under the Elections Act. There's a process for the returning officer to vet, to check the nominations, the signatures, the residences, etc. May a candidate or candidate's agent examine that nomination paper within the 48 hours allowed for scrutiny? If so, on what basis would that occur? Under what authority would a candidate or his or her agent come and say they want to see the paper?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You mean the other person's paper?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This exists under the present statute. As long as the papers are there and have not been returned to Ottawa, they can be opened.

The Chair: You regard them as quasi-public documents and they may be examined?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Right, and any member of the public may go in.

The Chair: That's great.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will issue instructions on how to do the verification, and this is one indication of where that permanent list will come in very handy.

The Chair: Yes, okay. That's good.

Subclause 103(2) allows an elector to object to someone being on the election list for a reason—for example, they're not a citizen or they're not Canadian or whatever. There is a provision for an affidavit of objection. The requirement now, if you look at it, says they must provide an affidavit alleging “the other person is not entitled to vote in that electoral district”, but there's no requirement that any reasons be given for that in the affidavit. Was there a reason the statute wouldn't require reasons for the allegation to be included in the affidavit?

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Assistant Director of Operations, Electoral Coordinator, Elections Canada): Actually, when someone submits an affidavit of objection they have to state why they think the elector is not eligible to vote.

The Chair: It doesn't say that, though. It just simply says they must “complete an affidavit of objection in the prescribed form, alleging that the other person is not entitled to vote”.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: In order to do that then they have to indicate why they think the person is not entitled to vote.

The Chair: Why would you impose that if you haven't imposed it by statute?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: There's a provision that states the onus is on the person making the objection to prove to the returning officer the person that's being objected to is not eligible, and that's at clause 104. In order to be able to do that they have to provide a reason on which the returning officer would make a decision based on evidence.

The Chair: All right. So the only evidence taken into account is that which is included in the affidavit, or is there other evidence?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: It can be a number of things. The returning officer could ask whatever questions are necessary in order to find out whether the elector should remain on the list or not. They can hear the elector. A number of things can happen, depending on what the allegation is.

The Chair: And the standard of proof there—a person has to prove that the name of the person should not appear on the list of electors.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. Some people have said it's impossible to prove a negative. Isn't that a standard that's almost impossible? You're asking an elector who believes someone is not entitled to be an elector to prove the negative.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: This is something that's not widely used in terms of objections to electors. As a matter of fact, I think we only had around 20 the last time around in 1993. Usually people will allege that an elector is not a Canadian citizen, for example, or they allegedly don't reside at the particular address they were registered at. So in order to prove that, the elector who is being objected to could provide some documentary proof that they actually reside there or they could provide proof of their citizenship, if they wanted to.

The Chair: I'll go for quick bullets here. Mr. Solomon, you had your hand up, did you?

Mr. John Solomon: Yes.

The Chair: All right. Mr. White as well. Mr. White is first.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

• 2040

Mr. Kingsley, I just wanted to explore for a moment the size of the risk with this possibility of electronic technologies being used in the future.

Would you agree, first of all, that there is no way under our present system of voting that we know for certain the person appearing and saying he's Mr. Joe Smith and he'd like to vote is actually Mr. Joe Smith? There is actually a huge risk in the present system that a person who isn't the prescribed voter can get to vote, and in the end the electronic methods with the new technologies may be more secure than what we have now.

Secondly, can you give us absolute conviction or assurance that nobody is going to be forced to do anything they don't want to do with the new technology, that nobody will have to self-identify their vote in order to use it, and that it will be secure before you ever test it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, I want to give you all those assurances, because that's what we have in mind. This is why we don't have a project for you now, because there is nothing that we could propose to you now that would satisfy me that I would be able to satisfy you on what you've just said.

It is true that the present system, which doesn't require elector cards or identification, has a certain element of risk attached to it, but I think that risk is attenuated by the fact that people have to go to the polls in person. And I must be honest about this. That carries some weight, certainly with me and with other electors. It requires a certain amount of gall to go and cheat in person, and doing it electronically is easier, if you're going to do it.

So what we want to do is make sure that whatever we test will meet the test of secret ballot, the test of participation only by those who wish to participate, and the test of having targeted those groups who stand to benefit and be able to use it most. But there would have to be a pre-registration. We wouldn't just tell people to phone up on polling day and vote. They would have to give us their numbers. All of the control features would go into play. And in regard to all the programs that would be written, I would provide you with the updates on the testing, on who's doing the testing and how they're doing it—all the variables that were done—so we don't run into this kind of problem. We've developed a reputation in terms of our computer testing, and this is what we would put on display when we make these presentations to you.

Mr. Ted White: You've made me a believer, Mr. Kingsley.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a couple of quick questions in reference to parts of the act. You provide for one hard copy and one computerized copy of the voters lists. As I recall, as candidates we used to be able to get more than one paper copy of the voters lists when the election was called. Is this a change now in the act? Are you restricting us? I think we were given one, plus an option of four more. In the act it says only one now. Yet in your revised clause, for the revised lists, you provide one for each candidate with an option of four additional copies. So my question is, am I dreaming about the previous elections or not?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: No, you're not dreaming. In the past, up to 10 copies of the preliminary list were available to candidates. What we found over the years is that the preliminary list is not necessarily the one that candidates use as much as the other copies that come later on, and most of the copies used to just sit there at a great cost. So now you would have one electronic copy, one paper copy, and very shortly thereafter—because the period of the election has been reduced since then—you would get the revised list to be used at the advance poll. You would have one electronic copy, one paper copy, and up to four additional copies of that one. Then a week later, you would get the official list that is to be used on polling day in the same quantities.

Mr. John Solomon: Well, we used all of our copies. Would it be a problem if we were to move an amendment to at least have one, with an option of four additional paper copies of the original list? We didn't get our revised copies until way into the campaign, and by then they weren't as useful to us as they would have been initially.

Ms. Diane Bruyère: You would now get your preliminary list the first week of the campaign, the revised list on day 11—about two and a half weeks later—and then on polling day you would have the others.

• 2045

Certainly, if the committee wishes to look at the number of copies, that's fine. All we're saying is that when it was 10, it was too high, because a lot of people used to just not pick them up, and it does cost quite a bit to reproduce a stack of papers like that.

Mr. John Solomon: To make it consistent with subclause 107(4), we might want to move an amendment to make that consistent with the initial list.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If you do move such an amendment, may I suggest that it also be that the candidate must request the number of copies before, so that we're not cutting down trees unnecessarily.

Mr. John Solomon: The second question I had is in relation to the prohibition of the use of the voters list. How does the province get to use the voters list? It says here the only people that are allowed to use it are members of Parliament or.... It prohibits provinces from using them in provincial elections. So I'm wondering how you work around that when the provinces want to use them. It's clause 111.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's a very easy and open process. If a provincial electoral body wishes to utilize the lists or derivatives of them for a provincial election, they enter into an agreement with me. The statute allows that. And the moment that is done, they turn around and provide the lists to the candidates and the parties running in that election.

The issue that is very dangerous is if people utilize the federal list, which is equivalent to that list, before there's an agreement. That is clearly against the law. If they utilize it even after we've done it, there are differences between the two lists, because under federal law, you can be on the federal list but have asked that your name not be on the provincial list. The moment that name appears—people lose track of which list it came from—electors feel that the privacy of the information concerning them has been violated in the process. That's why it has to follow the deal with the Chief Electoral Officer of the province, and then it flows from him or her to the candidates and the parties within the province, not by the back door from the federal parties feeding their provincial counterparts.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, this is a matter of some potential delicacy for parties who collaborate extensively, federally/provincially, in the same province, for example. It was raised by one of the parties who presented here earlier in this process. I believe it was a member of the Liberal Party who indicated that they would very much like to have used the provincial lists, or maybe it was vice versa. The provincials wished to use the most recent federal electoral lists. They were in the hands of some of the same people who are active federally and provincially within the same party, and it's awfully easy to make use of those lists later.

Right now we have a problem in that it would be illegal to use those lists. The people who were working with the federal list last year are the same people who are now getting into a provincial election, and they've got the list in their basement. The law prevents them from using it and makes it an offence to use it. This is a potential problem. Is there any way that can be fixed?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The best fix is to get the provincial CEOs to utilize the list. That way everything is fixed. One should not utilize an old federal list in that context, because there have been updates in the meantime. We do quarterly updates with all sorts of information. Plus, if you do utilize the federal list, even if it's relatively up to date, the people who have opted out of sharing for provincial purposes wind up on those lists, and we wind up with a problem around the credibility of our measures to protect the information. A law has been broken then. That's what happens.

• 2050

The Chair: One of the suggestions was that there would be an exemption given if the previous list at the other level of government were to be used only for canvassing or otherwise communicating with voters for the purposes of an election or a referendum held under provincial law in a province that has entered into an agreement. So this was the suggestion that was made. Would that protect the integrity of the federal list?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If they've entered into an agreement, then it's much better to go with the lists that are provided to the provincial chief electoral officer and spread out, because then you're dealing with the same information within the parties, between parties, between candidates, and with the Chief Electoral Officer. Otherwise, the Chief Electoral Officer starts to have discussions with parties about what's on the list and they're quoting from their version of the federal list and he's quoting from his version of the same list. But it's not the same list.

It creates havoc within the local or the provincial administration and can create real havoc even with a three-month difference. There are a lot of changes of address within each three months—an incredible amount. We're dealing with 20 million records here. Sixteen percent of them change address every year. That means 3% would have changed address just within three months.

The Chair: I have a question on clause 325, which deals with the protection of existing election advertising. It says: “No person shall prevent or impair the transmission to the public of an election advertising message”, and that would include a brochure, a pamphlet, or a sign. This is to protect election advertising that's out there, and it's a well-intentioned clause. I can't think of any MP who would object to it, but in thinking through its application, it occurred to me that there might be some scenarios where there would be a real clash between that prohibition, that protection for signage....

I'll give you two examples: one, a candidate illegally places an election sign on private property and the private property owner removes the election sign. Under this clause, as I read it, that private landowner would have committed an offence by impairing the transmission to the public of an election advertising message without the consent of the person who authorized it. That's one.

The second involves a municipality where there would be signage on the roadway. Let's say the municipality has bylaws for safety and other reasons, saying, no, you can't put an election sign in the middle of the intersection. The municipal employee removes the signage or the brochure that's taped to the telephone pole or something. There would be a clash there between one public purpose statute based on safety, let's say, and then this one to protect the advertiser.

Have we all thought that through? Are we prepared to deal with the clash that would be there inevitably? Have you any suggestions to us, or have your officials? I respect the intentions for which the clause was put there. It's to protect the campaigns and the election advertising of candidates.

Mr. Tom McMahon (Acting Director of Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties, Elections Canada): Certainly there's no harm in proposing an amendment that would clarify that concern. If such an amendment were not to come forward, then I think the interpretation we would probably bring to it is that this clause, and in fact anything to do with election advertising, does not presume to give people rights to post messages in a way that is unauthorized. That's in fact contrary to law. It doesn't give people rights to trespass. So I think it would be difficult to interpret this clause as somehow conferring that.

But if you wanted to propose an amendment to make it even more clear, there would be no harm done.

• 2055

The Chair: No. I think that could be a reasonable answer there. I don't have a big problem with that.

Mr. Solomon, you seem to have a quick bullet.

Mr. John Solomon: I have another question, because I'm not sure if this solves the Saskatchewan problem on the voting hours.

It says in clause 128, in the central time zone, which actually should be the central standard time zone, that it's 8.30 p.m. In the summertime the mountain time zone closes at 7.30 p.m. In essence, does that solve the problem? It's the same time in Alberta as it is in Saskatchewan, so that would cover that off, and with daylight saving time in Saskatchewan right now there's an hour difference.

Let's say it was held in this period. It was 8.30 p.m. in Regina. The polls would close a half an hour earlier in Alberta than they would in Saskatchewan. It doesn't really fix the problem totally. So I'm wondering if maybe we could just change the whole thing and go from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in central standard time. Is that a problem?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My best advice to you is if you look at this clause and look at the by-elections we've just run, this is how this scheme is supposed to run. These are winter hours, in other words. When we worked this out with the committee, they were winter hours.

The basic assumption made was that everybody flipped to summer hours, but that's not the case in significant portions of Saskatchewan. They don't. Therefore, the amendment being proposed is to say that this scheme is what is intended, and that gives us the staggered voting hours across the land that results in results not filtering out from central Canada to western Canada.

That's what it does. That's the essence of what this does. And the amendment would say that is the purpose that the Chief Electoral Officer will achieve when the hours of voting are not like what is described here. He will have the authority to say, Saskatchewan, you're from 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., or from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., instead of these hours, because it's a different season when the hours don't go ahead. All it does is that.

On top of that, if Ontario were to change its time zone and no longer go back to anything but advanced or eastern daylight savings time, and there would no longer be a winter regime, this new clause would allow the hour to be refitted into the scheme, as originally planned for voting hours. This is what it's aimed at, to overcome that very difficulty.

Mr. John Solomon: But the amendments don't show that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. The amendments say the Chief Electoral Officer—

Mr. John Solomon: I'm sorry, but the act doesn't show that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. The act describes what happens in the winter, and that's what's supposed to happen. But what the amendment would say is that this is now the objective. If this cannot be achieved because the hours have not been switched around to fit this, then the Chief Electoral Officer shall decree that those are the hours that prevail, so that the objective is met.

Mr. John Solomon: So in the circumstances of now, you could actually.... If there's a general election in the winter hours, then our polls would likely close at 8 p.m., not 8.30 p.m.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Your polls would be—

Mr. John Solomon: They have us locked into 8.30 p.m., which I think is not accurate. It doesn't solve the problem, because that means Alberta still closes before we do, and they're west of us the last time I looked. We don't change in Saskatchewan. It's called central standard time, because we don't change, except for the Lloydminster boundary area.

So I suspect I'll come back with another amendment to clarify the Saskatchewan situation, because there has to be something for central standard time. It can't be the same as Newfoundland time, Atlantic time, or mountain time, or eastern time, or Pacific. It has to be a special time.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you've made a good suggestion, and you may want to walk it through with Mr. Kingsley or his officials to make sure that each side has a good handle on the time zones.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The right person here is right beside me when we're doing it this time.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have one on each side. I'm well protected.

The Chair: That's great.

I'll allow one question to Mr. Anders, and then we'll wrap up.

• 2100

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pursuing something Mr. Solomon of the NDP brought up earlier. That was this whole question of candidates getting 10 copies of the voters lists. I'm wondering, am I to assume then that in previous elections there were 10 copies calculated per candidate and per an average of five parties, I'm guessing, and in 301 electoral districts? So we're talking about 15,000-plus—and it's probably higher than that—of these voters lists that were generated. I know in my campaign we used a computer, and if we did use anything that was a single copy of the electors list, certainly we photocopied pages. You don't take the entire electors list with you from door to door. Instead, you'd be taking a photocopy of a particular page that would have a poll number or a street on it. Am I correct in assuming there would be in excess of 15,000 copies?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: You're quite correct. The act provided that every single candidate was entitled to 10 copies of the preliminary list. That's an awful lot of trees and an awful lot of pages that used to be reproduced, and most of the time they never came to pick them up.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's an awful waste of trees.

The Chair: It used to be.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To cost it out, it's $6 million to provide 10 copies to each candidate. What we're trying to do is reduce this by several million by doing it this way. It's not small potatoes.

The Chair: Yes. It's green enough for us. Is it green enough for Mr. Anders? That's good.

With that, we'll close. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. Your remarks and answers have been very helpful throughout.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you all very much. We've enjoyed this.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.