:
Absolutely. That is on our agenda and it's okay; we'll just talk about that. I'll save time at the end. Thank you.
As discussed at our Tuesday meeting, the committee invited Mr. Kingsley to come today to discuss the response we've received from the government with respect to our 13th report at the end of session in June. We have that before us. Furthermore, on Tuesday of this week the government did introduce Bill , which implements several of the committee's recommendations. That bill will ultimately be referred back to this committee after second reading. I'm hoping that members can maybe focus on the report, the response from the government today, and see whether or not we want to provide a response to the response, rather than getting sidetracked to Bill C-31. I would hope that members can keep focused on the response. That's what I had spoken to Mr. Kingsley about, and I'm quite sure it's the fair way to go.
Mr. Kingsley, I think if it's okay with you we would like to start with opening remarks from you. Perhaps you could introduce again your colleagues and then we'll open the floor to questions.
Colleagues, just so everybody is aware of the rules before we begin, we'll go in the usual round of questions starting with a seven-minute round in the usual format.
Mr. Kingsley, welcome, and thank you so much for agreeing to come again on short notice. I appreciate your cooperation and diligence for the committee. Please introduce your colleagues and then we can begin.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to respond to the Committee’s request to discuss its June 2006 report, Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change—the name you have given it—and the government’s recent response to that report.
I am accompanied today by Ms. Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr. Rennie Molnar, Senior Director of Operations, Register and Geography.
The first half of my presentation will be in French, and the second half in English, obviously.
In preparing its report, the Committee considered the recommendations for amendments to the Canada Elections Act set out in my 2005 report to the Speaker of the House, Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms.
Several of these recommendations were endorsed by the Committee and included in its report, some with enhancements. In turn, in its response the Government agreed with many of the Committee’s recommendations and has introduced legislation—Bill C-31 as you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman—to implement them.
A number of areas have been agreed by Committee or by the Government in its response as warranting further consideration. These include a simpler and fairer broadcasting regime; a general review of the Special Voting Rules; a more precise recommendation for an expanded authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to create mobile polls; the distribution of the annual and final lists of electors to all registered and eligible partiers; the development of a simpler administrative process for securing time extensions for the filing of financial returns, and the right to strike by employees of Elections Canada.
I continue to think that these are issues worth pursuing by us all and I would be pleased to make available to the Committee such resources of my Office as it may require, respecting any work upon which it may embark in these areas, and to participate in your deliberations.
There are a number of matters raised in the Committee report or in the Government response that I would like to comment on further.
The 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauvé restored the right of prisoners in federal institutions, penitentiaries, to vote, but the Canada Elections Act does not have a mechanism for them to exercise this right. The Government has rejected the recommendations for the expansion to federal institutions of the existing statutory process for voting in provincial correctional institutions. In the absence of the required amendment of the Canada Elections Act, I propose to continue to adapt the Act with each election—to the extent permitted by law—to provide the needed mechanism.
I would like to add a comment that is not found in the text that was tabled: I would like to know if this Committee has any objections to my actions.
I also urge Parliament to continue to consider this issue.
I will now continue in English.
[English]
In its report, the committee rejected the wording of my 2005 recommendation respecting a civil examination and inquiry authority for the financial returns required from political entities, particularly political parties, under the Canada Elections Act. I remain convinced of the need for such an authority in light of the importance of the public disclosure requirements of the act and the significant amount of the public reimbursements paid out to registered parties on the basis of those returns. I am willing, obviously, to look at the wording with you to see what wording you would find acceptable.
Following recommendations initiated by the committee, the government's response has proposed a requirement for electors to produce identification in order to vote.
Provision of ID constitutes a major change in the functioning of the polls. Should Parliament wish to proceed with this initiative, it must be very clear as to what is required. This requirement will be implemented by some 65,000 individual deputy returning officers across the land, whose judgment must be consistent: in Canada there's only one definition of a Canadian.
Before implementing this recommendation, it is important to know exactly which entities would be considered government or agencies of government and how many types of government identification have a person's name, residential address, and photograph, and to know what part of the elector universe has such identification. Furthermore, I would want to hear the views of Parliament before authorizing alternative types of identification. This is particularly important as deputy returning officers at the polls will have no flexibility respecting this identification once it is authorized for an election.
At the conclusion of its recommendations, the committee noted that it was awaiting a report from my office respecting the financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The committee indicated that upon its receipt it would address seven specific topics noted in the report in the context of a review of overall finance issues. These topics will include such things as membership fees, tax credits, and tax receipts for pre-election contributions.
In response to that request, I am preparing a report for the assistance of the committee that should be available within the next 30 days. That report will deal expressly with those seven issues. It will not go further into other financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
Elections Canada has data respecting the operation of the 2004 political financing regime, which it has provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill —that relates to the 2005 financial year. If the committee wishes, I will be pleased to make that data available to it.
The data that is available now to Elections Canada does not reflect a normal electoral cycle because of the effect of general elections in each of the three years since the implementation of those initiatives. In other words, that's why I cannot provide you with a report on the full implications and full ramifications of Bill , as it was then known.
I have already provided the committee, under separate cover dated October 5, in a letter that reached you during your committee deliberations on that day, with information respecting the implementation of different systems to assist candidates on polling day to identify electors who have voted. I would be pleased to answer any question the committee may have respecting that information.
I would also like to note that the government response has two recommendations to which it is asking the Chief Electoral Officer to respond. One of them concerns the warning that would be posted in the polls, which would add to the fact that we already post a notice to the effect that one must be a Canadian and one must be 18 years of age before voting. I'm asked to also add that it is against the law—that it is committing a crime—to do otherwise. I intend to start doing that as soon as possible.
The other one concerns providing instructions to electoral officials who are responsible for registration on polling day. We already do that, Mr. Chairman, so if there is anything I'm not understanding about this, I would appreciate further guidance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my presentation.
Thank you all for being here, and Mr. Kingsley, for your presentation.
Let me just raise a few issues and we may come back to them in different forms, through our various questions.
I'm interested in the lack of response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision that confirms the right of inmates in federal institutions to vote and the somewhat of a standoff we seem to have in the ability to exercise that right. So I'm interested in your comment that you will be acting within the current act to provide that ability to the full extent that you're able. I'd like to know a little more about the barriers to that and whether they are absolute in some situations, or whether there is a way you can provide that opportunity.
Secondly, I'm interested in the government's response to our committee's report and the concern raised about what is termed “serial vouchers”, which is an ominous term, at best. I'm thinking particularly about remote aboriginal communities where ID is often not in people's possession, and what impact that may have on their ability to vote. And I think it goes something like, a “vouchee” can't become a “vouchor”. I think that's the aspect of it. If you're vouched for, you can't vouch for someone else's identity.
And finally, this goes somewhat beyond the scope of your initial remarks. As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada has a leadership convention coming up, and there has been some confusion, if I can call it that, around how convention fees are to be treated, whether they're to be receipted and therefore provide a benefit to the person who is paying them, but also, therefore, a deduction on their allowable contribution for that year. I wonder if you can bring any more clarity at this stage to that. I know you've made recent statements on it, and I wonder if you have a definitive statement to make on it.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, with respect to prisoners in federal penitentiaries, I have, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, adapted the statute in accordance with my powers, which is the power to adapt in unforeseen circumstances or in cases of emergency. I have adapted the statute because Parliament had not had an opportunity to amend the law, based on the Supreme Court judgment.
What I am indicating here is that since it is not proposed to change the statute at this time, it would be my intention to continue to do so, unless I hear differently from this committee. That's what I'm asking, because that would be a bit of a stretch to the definition of “unforeseen” and emergency situation, which is what the statute allows me to do at this time.
Otherwise, what will happen is that the persons who are affected by the decision, if I do not adapt the statute, would have to go and seek redress from the courts to force the Supreme Court judgment to be enforceable for the election. That's why I'm seeking the guidance of the committee.
With respect to serial vouching, my understanding is that this is an issue that is of concern to all the parties represented in the House, which is the ability of a person to be registered on polling day, through a vouching, and then to vouch for the next person in line.
This has an impact all over Canada. It has not been particularly reported as an issue, that I can recollect, with respect to aboriginals. I think it would have an impact all over. I sense parliamentarians around this table felt this was a problem and therefore viewed the response of the government to be something that reflected the will of this committee.
With respect to convention fees, I have nothing further to add to what I've stated before in terms of interpretation, and therefore I would not want to add anything.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingsley, I would like to begin with a comment. We remain greatly perplexed as to the accuracy of the lists. The best evidence of this is that in your 2005 report, you asked that the deadline for distributing the lists be changed from October 15 to November 15. I doubt that this request was made simply on a whim. You no doubt realized that on November 15, the lists would be more accurate and would reflect the considerable number of moves in Quebec.
It explains why we put forward an amendment to Bill to change the election date suggested in the said bill, i.e. the third Monday in October. That is what is called “crying over spilt milk”.
When you appear again before this Committee after the next elections, we will again lament the inaccuracy of the lists. I warn you in advance that if the voters put there confidence in me once again and I am still a member of this Committee, I will say: “I told you so!”
That being said, I want to get back to the bingo cards. In your letter of October 5, I get the feeling you wanted to make things more complicated than they really are.
Has anyone from your office spoken to Mr. Blanchet or one of his representatives to have them explain this system to you? Do you consider that you have an in-depth knowledge of the bingo card system in Quebec?
For example, you said that a photocopier will be needed at each polling station. Are you aware of the NCR, or no carbon required forms? In Quebec, there is an NCR sheet. The party that shows up first gets the first copy, and the second gets the second copy. Why make it complicated when it’s so simple?
You also said that it would cost between $10.6 million and $23.5 million to hire staff to manage it all. Why not ask the poll clerk already in the polling station to cross names off on the lists, while having the bingo card next to him or her? The poll clerk could indicate that voter No. 28 voted in the last two hours. There would be no need for additional staff.
If you say that this involves costs for employees, some people will surely ask if they are crazy, when it comes to the bingo cards. I asked, and in Quebec, the work is done by the clerk.
You say that the list is confidential. Well, they would not be handing out photocopies of the list, but a sheet listing 28, 128, 132, etc. We have the lists, and we can check and see that voter No. 28’s name is Jean-Pierre Kingsley and that he voted between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m..
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Firstly, with respect to the accuracy of the lists, the letter I wrote to the Committee—on October 5, I believe, I referred to it earlier—clearly indicates that with a fixed election date, special arrangements can be made. However, even with these special arrangements, the list will not be as accurate as the list we would have prepared for November 15, even with special arrangements. I was very clear on the subject. The Committee was aware of this when it voted in favour of the Bill in its existing form.
I made other recommendations and suggestions to the Committee, but it dropped them; I have no problems with that. However, the Committee was clearly informed as to the accuracy of the list. It’s written in the letter. So your decision is not a problem for me, but I will do everything in my power to have as accurate a list as possible.
Would it have been better to wait? I believe that suggestion was implicit in my letter.
Secondly, with regard to the bingo card, we shouldn’t mix scenarios. We did not expect to need photocopiers for the bingo cards. We understand the system. In fact, your representative was kind enough to bring us a bingo card during an advisory committee session two weeks ago. So, I know the system, I have seen it. It has been explained to me.
Before answering, we contacted the office of the Directeur général des élections du Québec to understand how the system operates, obviously, because it is important that we provide information that is as accurate as possible.
Thirdly, if I could adapt it to the existing system, I would do it. If I knew how to do it, I would, because I always do everything I can to help the candidates, as well as the voters. In this job, it’s my mission in life. So if we could find a way to do it, even by making modifications, I would be willing to pursue the discussion.
But when you refer to the Quebec model, you should know that it calls for the addition of two paid employees for this task. We have calculated that one paid employee per polling station costs $10.8 million. That’s the cost involved. Could we do it without paying someone?
I must also take into account the fact that the Committee wants to add identification papers to the electoral process, which will obviously create more work for the polling stations and clerks. But if there was a way to do it, let me say right away that I would agree, because I know that it would help you.
:
Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleague Mr. Godin for allowing me to be here as well—I'm not usually on this committee.
I am very concerned about some of the proposals that have been put forward.
In your brief, Mr. Kingsley, you talk about the ID provision and that it will constitute a major change in the functioning of the polls, and I would certainly agree with that. You also talk about the judgment that would be applied and whether it would be consistent—we're talking about 65,000 people. But I think what you haven't referenced, and what I would have a huge concern about, is that if we move to this kind of system we are potentially disenfranchising thousands of people, mostly low-income people or homeless people, who for one reason or another don't have ID.
In Vancouver East, for example, as you know, we have relied on statutory declarations and we have lawyers on election day who come from various organizations—it's very non-partisan—and that statutory declaration has been sufficient for the returning officer to accept that the person is who they are, they have an address, they have no other ID. Mr. Owen talks about remote communities, aboriginal communities, and I'm very concerned that with the requirements around ID, particularly if we're saying you need one photograph ID but otherwise it's got to be two pieces of ID, we will be in effect disenfranchising many people in low-income communities. So my question is, are we applying the right tool to the problem that's been identified? If the issue here is multiple voting or multiple vouching, then surely there must be a mechanism to deal with that, rather than penalizing people who legitimately don't have ID and spend hours in lineups waiting to vote.
I've sent you cases over a number of elections of problems that we've had, and it is a major issue. I'm very concerned that if we introduce this as a new principle in our elections we'll really be changing not just the functioning but how we enfranchise people. I'd like you to respond to that.
I'm not normally on this committee, so I beg the committee's indulgence. Some of the things I want to put on record are related to elections, but may not be related to today's agenda, because I don't get that much access to the Chief Electoral Officer.
I'd like to talk about a couple of things that have come up in elections. One is related to ID, which we've talked about. I agree with the idea of having ID, but just to emphasize Mr. Owen's point, communities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut don't have any roads to get there, so most people won't have driver's licences. Youths don't have driver's licences. There just isn't the ID available, so it's a problem for which we're going to have to figure out a solution.
The lists have been problematic in our area. I like a permanent electoral list. I just think we have to refine it better, because we go to every second house and there are people there who don't live there, they've moved, they have way more children than they're supposed to have, etc.
We have a big problem with hospitals in rural areas. It's true that if a person is in the hospital, they can vote. The problem is that for every person in the hospital, sometimes they have between five and ten visitors, especially if it's an acute thing. The problem is that you don't know when you're going to go into the hospital emergency ward. These people come from a hundred miles away because there's only one hospital in the entire Yukon, which is bigger than any country in Europe. People have to come from all over the Yukon, which results in them not being in their riding that day, so they're disenfranchised. They can't vote. There's no way they can get back a hundred miles to vote and there's no way they're going to abandon a person on their death bed who they didn't know was going to be there on election day.
I don't know if we still do voting cards. I don't get involved in the mechanics of the election that much, being the candidate, but there was an issue with this at some time in the past. A voting card came in the mail. In our area, there are a lot of these mailboxes. People go to their mailboxes and they throw out all their junk mail and anything that doesn't have their name on it, so you end up with piles of voting cards all over the place and people can just pick them up and vote with them.
Finally, my last point is on . As the Chief Electoral Officer, I'm sure you must be aware of the problems caused when there are two elections at the same time. That's not very convenient in Canada. It's very confusing for the voter. One election is confusing enough as far as enumeration, advance polls, and all that are concerned.
Unfortunately, we have , which doesn't make a provision that you're going to have elections. The first time there's an election, it's going to be three days away from a Yukon election. My suggestion is that we amend that bill so that there's an ability to change the time of elections by a month instead of three days, really, so that we don't have overlapping elections. I think everyone thinks that would make sense.
I don't know if you want to comment on any of those, but those are things that have come up in elections in my area.
First of all, I have a brief statement to make. I have some difficulty with what Madam Davies was getting at. She said we were going to use a sledgehammer to fix some mythical problem. She's not even part of this committee. This committee had achieved relative unanimity in recognizing a problem with voter fraud. Now she comes in and pretends the problem is mythical and we're using a sledgehammer to address it.
Furthermore, I want to say on record that I agree with her that it's a fundamental right for Canadian citizens to vote. It's an important franchise, and we don't want to disenfranchise them improperly. However, there are certain responsibilities that come with being a Canadian citizen, and we all too often overlook them. One of the responsibilities should be that you have some way to identify yourself. Goodness gracious, where are we going with this? Are we going to suggest that people who can't identify themselves still have this unalienable right to vote? Anyway, that's my little rant in reply to Madam Davies.
I participated in a trip to South Africa this past summer recess, and we had the opportunity to meet with their electoral commission. I was amazed at how advanced their system is. They have a photo ID voters card. They went well beyond what we're suggesting in our report, or in . They went well beyond a driver's licence or two other pieces of non-picture ID. They actually instituted a picture ID card that people are required to have when they go to the polls. In addition, to prevent any potential fraud, they also ink the thumb of the individual. So there's no chance, unless you cut your thumb off, of voting more than once.
I'm asking you, in light of your response to our report, and by extension to , if you believe that what's contained in the bill goes far enough. How many other countries around the world have followed South Africa and taken the precautions to make sure that voters are actually eligible?
Mr. Kingsley, I seem to have detected in you some openness towards bingo cards.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that apart from Mr. Proulx, Ms. Picard and me, most of our colleagues here do not know the Quebec system of bingo cards. You have been very polite, you appear to be listening, but in my opinion you do not know specifically what we are talking about.
I propose that at a future meeting, we invite someone from the office of the Directeur général des élections du Québec to come explain to us how the system works. I don’t mean to say that you aren’t smart enough to figure it out, but I have been living with it since it became law in Quebec. In my opinion, it would help the Committee members to better understand the process. In any case, that’s what I’d like to see.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley, I understand your role very well. One of your objectives is the integrity of the process. In other words, you want everyone to have an equal opportunity and that there be no form of partisanship. You also have a secondary and related objective, the fluidity of the voting process. You do not want waiting lines, which was a complaint in previous elections. You want things to keep moving. I think that the bingo card could be integrated without hiring staff. Here’s how.
There is a deputy returning officer and a poll clerk. A voter—let’s say she’s called Diane Davidson—shows up to vote. She is asked for photo ID. She presents her Quebec driver’s licence, which has her photo, date of birth, and address. While she is behind the curtain, in the booth, no one else can come to the table. Do you agree? The other voters are in line, at the entrance to the polling station. While Diane Davidson, voter No. 28, votes in polling division 326, for example, the clerk or the deputy returning officer can make an “X” next to number 28 without any new staff having to be hired.
The fluidity of the voting process is thus preserved. No confidential lists are handed over, there is no need to photocopy NCR cards. With regard to additions at the bottom of the list, if numbers were given—for example, 622 to 630—Diane Davidson would have been added during the revision. Additional lines would have been provided and number 622 could be added by hand to indicate that she came to vote. No additional people would be hired, privacy would be respected, and the voting process would remain fluid.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is unfortunate that I must use my allotted time for this, but I would like to begin by commenting on the remarks made by Mr. Jay Hill concerning ' representations. She is not a member of the committee, but she asked a question. It must be remembered that she was given permission to ask this question. It should be remembered that she is a member of the House of Commons and this is not the first time that a member who is not sitting on a committee is heard. New Conservative members are heard quite frequently, and no one makes such comments. I believe that she expressed her opinion in a respectful manner.
The problem raised by Ms. Davis is that in our country, perhaps the most beautiful country in the world, there are many homeless in some regions. This is an ever-present reality in the riding of Vancouver-East.
I too went to South Africa and saw what happens there. They don’t take fingerprints, they mark the thumb with dye, and the dye remains visible for a week. But if they use it during the two weeks previous, it’s too bad, but the thumb gets washed. They don’t need to cut it off. We have the same problem. We talk about the problem of people who may have voted in the advance poll and who vote again on election day. That could be one of the problems.
I’d like to get back to ’ question. It is true that we discussed certain things and we made recommendations. However, we report to members of the House, who may have a different opinion. I believe the question she asked you is clear. Has there been a problem with regard to the people who voted? You say that no one made complaints or none of the complaints were substantiated. I believe the question was a legitimate one. I would like to hear your comments.
:
I actually have two questions.
I'm looking for a workable solution, Mr. Kingsley. I appreciate you are saying that maybe you haven't found fraud, but anecdotally I've had many interventions from my members. To take an airplane, which I realize may not be consistent with the lifestyle of someone who's homeless, you need photo ID. I know that in the province of Ontario, people who don't have a driver's licence can go to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. That is recognized as a photo ID for the age of majority. And I appreciate your offer to bring those forms of ID here.
You say in Mexico that it was $1 billion to institute their photo ID, but Mexico City has as many citizens as we have in all of Canada. The scale isn't quite the same. I'm wondering if we could maybe look at those third-party IDs as a possibility.
The serial vouching was a problem. I think it was Mr. Preston or Mr. Lukiwski who said somebody shows up with a busload of people and says they know all of these people and they'll vouch for all of them. I come from a large urban area in Kitchener. People who are homeless still go to shelters. There are people they interact with daily, whether it's in the St. John's kitchen or elsewhere, who can say this is person X. It seems to me that there are ways to work around this, notwithstanding some of Larry's comments about remote Canada.
I want to underscore--and I wish Libby were still here--there were instances in downtown Toronto where they were showing up with a Time magazine or a Maclean's magazine with a label on it that was passing as some kind of corroboration: “I'm one of the Scott Reids, and this is my address.” I think it is really important that there be a more legitimate way to validate, for everyone.
You mentioned earlier, in response to Mr. Owen's question, about the federally sentenced population. How many people in prison, as a percentage, are you reaching? Notwithstanding that you feel that it's not adequately addressed at this point in time, how many prisoners would get the opportunity to vote now?
:
Every prisoner has the opportunity.
I should also mention that I notify the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society all over Canada so they can watch what we're doing as electoral officials.
So all of them have the opportunity. The take-up rate is somewhat less than 50%, if I remember correctly. I don't want to be pinned on that, but it's not more than 50%.
With respect to the ID, it is third-party ID that's contemplated now. This is what is before the committee. Therefore, that's the answer to your question. It's not a separate card. If the committee ever wishes to discuss a separate card.... Obviously in Mexico, I was there, so I know what happened. I've been there since 1993. I know in detail why it cost $1 billion. It wouldn't cost $1 billion in Canada, but it would cost a lot of money. That's why you're not contemplating it at this time. So let's go with the third-party ID and find out.
With respect to vouching, I didn't want to belabour the point, but one person cannot vouch for everybody on the bus. One person has to vouch for one person on the bus; the next person in the bus has to vouch for the next person. That is what this serial vouching really is. The concern you had is that it may appear fishy. All of those people coming in with no ID, what's going on here? That is what you're trying to address, and I have no problem with that. But one must remember that the person doing the vouching has to be there. It's not a letter you sign that you know this person and sorry you couldn't make it to the polls. That doesn't satisfy. The person has to be there. So that's a factor to take into account.
I'm not sure whether the chairman's point was that your picture on a wanted poster qualifies as photo ID. There are any number of good ideas coming out of Cambridge nowadays.
I want to make an editorial observation and then I have a question for the Chief Electoral Officer.
We are talking in this country about going to fixed election dates. This, if it occurs, will give people extra time to get photo ID—those who are in a position to get it, if they don't already have it. While that won't resolve all problems that relate to photo ID, it does mean, first, that people will have the opportunity, and second, that we can work on ensuring the opportunity is taken advantage of to the widest extent possible. That's, I think, a responsibility we as parliamentarians would have.
I want to talk a bit about the whole concept of voter ID and the concerns of people with no fixed address—homeless people—and how this relates to them, because of course we're not doing this in a vacuum in this country. It has been done in Quebec, and my impression is that, as with many things when it comes to electoral law, Quebec is doing a very good job.
I'm not a Quebec resident, but my understanding is that what they've done is recognize the fact that homelessness as a large-scale phenomenon tends to occur more in some areas than in others. They're able to ensure, in certain polling stations where you're likely to get a large number of homeless people—at a federal level one could identify an area like the area Libby Davies represents—that you could set up polling stations that deal with this. You essentially take people who don't have the proper ID and don't have fixed addresses and stream them towards elections officials who have special training.
In an area such as the area I represent, there is a small amount of homelessness, but it tends to be people who are couch-surfing—teenagers who can't live at home with parents who are abusive, and that sort of thing—and it's much more small-scale.
What I'm getting at is I think there is some beneficial experience from Quebec. The question, Mr. Kingsley, to you is whether it would be possible to identify the areas where this is likely to arise and to deal with this problem in a manner that ensures that the kind of concerns Ms. Davies has expressed can be minimized as much as possible.
:
Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It was a good idea of yours to keep my minutes. Now I have five.
[Translation]
Good day, Mr. Kingsley, good day, Ms. Davidson, good day, Mr. Molnar.
Mr. Kingsley, it is my understanding that you had already been told that the decision you made regarding what is commonly called, in electoral jargon, bingo cards, was a problem for us. If you will permit, I will proceed in English regarding my complaints. With all due respect to the interpreters, I believe our English-speaking colleagues have difficulty grasping the details when they listen to the simultaneous translation, and I will be using highly technical election-related terms.
[English]
When we talk about bingo cards for the province of Quebec or elsewhere, we are talking of our voter tracking system. In other words, Madame Tartempion goes to the poll. She happens to be voter number 33 on the list. Somebody checks off a little card. We call it a bingo card because originally it was a little piece of paper with numbers from one to 300, or the number of voters in the poll. It was numbered with little squares from one to 300, let's say, so it looked like a bingo card but it wasn't a bingo card. You don't win anything, except maybe your election.
Mrs. Tartempion goes in the poll. She's number 33. She votes. Somebody checks off number 33, and so on. Then every hour or two these little cards are sent to our headquarters through our representatives and runners. Once they get to our organization office we know that in the poll voter 33, who turns out to be Mrs. Tartempion, has already voted. Therefore our telephone operators, our election workers, our candidate do not need to continue asking, phoning, or sending somebody to Mrs. Tartempion's door for her to vote. It's what we call the voter tracking system. It's the progression of votes during the day.
You said in your reply that to do this you first need a photocopier in every polling station. You don't need that. Second, in our reply you referred to the list of voters we'd be circulating and a certain danger for personal information. You don't need that. It's totally different from that. It's a piece of paper with numbers only, so somebody who does not already have the list of voters has no clue who belongs to that particular number. So you don't need a photocopier; you need NCR paper. You don't need to worry about the personal data. It doesn't go anywhere. It's strictly the numbers that travel.
I recommended to this committee that we invite representatives of the City of Gatineau, because it is just across the river. They have a system where on election day candidates don't need representatives in the polling station. As the day goes along, they automatically check on the list for the numbers that correspond to the voters. Every hour or two they hand it out to all of the candidates' representatives so that everybody knows about it. This is very inexpensive. They're just across the river, and if they want to charge you cab fare I'll go and get them myself. They could come to explain it to you.
I understand now that the committee will be inviting the Province of Quebec to send their election.... The committee will have to decide on this, and maybe we can have you here at the same time so everybody is on the same wavelength, as far as what the score is on this, to see if there's a possibility for you to accommodate this request.
If it's a multi-million-dollar expense you will not want to do this, the government will not want to do this, and I can appreciate that, But I think if we copy either the Province of Quebec or a municipality like Gatineau, we could do it for just about no additional cost. It would help, and it would make sure we wouldn't need all of these representatives at the polling stations.
Thank you.
I think we've pretty much covered everything with respect to the government's response.
Sir, you have agreed to get back to us on various forms of identification that you want the committee to consider as acceptable.
There was one issue that came up in the report that we did not cover today. If you want to respond, then mail it in. That happens to be about simpler and fairer ways of paid and free political broadcasting, which was something that did not come up at today's meeting.
What I'm understanding from the committee is that we want to follow up on the bingo card forum, and we will do that at some future date, just so everybody's clear and the records are clear.
I think that summarizes and completes our meeting today.
Mr. Kingsley.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to correct what I said to Madame Picard, in response, and I'll do it in French.
[Translation]
I did not recommend that candidates’ representatives be provided with lists of electors that would include the year of birth. I did not make that recommendation. I only recommended that such lists be given to the people in charge, to election officials. I would like to clarify this.
With regard to radio and television broadcasting, I consulted the political parties before making the recommendation, the first time. The second time, I repeated the recommendation. I simply want to straighten this out, because according to your committee minutes, you were under the impression I had not done so.
However, I did consult the broadcasters and, in my opinion, you should do so.