[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 27, 1995
.1106 
[Translation]
The Chair: Order please.
We are ready to start our proceedings. Mr. Kingsley is back with us and I would like to welcome him. I am also told that it is Mr. Girard's birthday today. The clerk will bring a cake later.
[English]
Before we start the proceedings, Mr. Kingsley has some information he would like to transmit to the committee supplementary to an answer given on Tuesday. Perhaps we could deal with that.
Then I will come to you. Is yours business?
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Yes, it was another matter.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Langlois: We have received from the clerk, Madame Carrière, a memorandum dated April 20, 1995. It is following a letter you have received, sir, from the Senate, Brenda M. Robertson.
After a second look the official opposition has decided not to participate in an informal committee or informal group between the Senate and the House of Commons.
The Chair: I see. I am sorry to hear that. We will soldier on and come back to the full committee with a report in due course.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Mr. Chairman, I have also received the same report.
We have some real questions and feel perhaps the proper debate is whether we should have joint committees, whether it is proper to structure these joint committees, since the one House is elected and the other is not. I would much rather suggest that we entertain a debate on the value and the validity of joint committees rather than try to iron out some of the minor procedural problems that may be occurring.
The Chair: Perhaps I could suggest that under the circumstances we could leave this until Tuesday. I have not heard of any meeting of the group having been called at this point. I think the appropriate thing is to leave it for today. We have witnesses here. We are prepared to hear their testimony. There is no particular urgency in the matter.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, the memo did indicate that you felt there was some urgency so that is why we responded in getting this to you.
The Chair: I think it just said that we were taking action. I am not one to sit around and do nothing, Mr. Hermanson. If there is something on the agenda I try to deal with it.
.1110
Mr. Hermanson: Certainly it is not urgent for us, but my understanding was that it was urgent.
The Chair: It is not urgent for us. Our plan is to try to solve the difficulties. If we have to do it alone, we will soldier on.
Mr. Kingsley, you had a supplementary answer you wanted to give, and then we will go back to the questioners who did not get to ask questions the other day.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Mr. Chairman and members, it is a pleasure for us to be here again today and to attempt to respond to your questions as fully as possible.
Our previous appearance had us dealing not only with the main estimates but also with a presentation on the project we have for a continuous register of electors. There was one point raised in terms of the removal of names from such a register and, with your permission which has already been granted, I would ask Mrs. Charles to add to the answer that was provided previously.
May she proceed?
The Chair: Yes, certainly.
Ms Judy Charles (Director, Strategic Planning, Elections Canada): Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday Mr. Milliken expressed the concern that I am sure many members have and that we share at Elections Canada about the mechanisms that would be in place to remove electors from a list under a continuous register. He was referring, I believe, to the list that was in effect for the 1993 general election. I simply wanted to bring a little precision to the answer I gave you at that time, Mr. Chairman.
It is important to remember that between 1992 and 1993, as I mentioned, we had the legislative ability to use the list that had been produced for the referendum in 1992 as the preliminary list for the 1993 election. However the legislation provided us with absolutely no mechanism to update that list.
We were under obligation to take the final list and use it as a preliminary list without making the kinds of changes we recognized would be necessary. Notwithstanding, we found it was a significant improvement over previous efforts.
The question you raised with respect to areas such as the one you represent, where there is a high student population, is one we have wrestled with and continue to wrestle with. I simply wanted to add that in the past we have dealt with this through the use of what we call targeted revision, revision that is probably more comparable to enumeration in that revising officers go door to door in particularly high mobility areas that have been identified to ensure they collect the information to the extent they can. We anticipate this would continue under a register scenario and may even possibly be enhanced.
The main point here is that no update mechanism existed during that period. Obviously any research we conduct on the development of a register would have to take into account the need for systematic methods of updating and ensuring that the list is accurate and comprehensive.
The Chair: My concern is if people go out to do a revision and do not take people off the list. If they find new people living at an address, they add them to the list and do not remove the other people. The list becomes grossly inaccurate as a result. I can show you polling divisions in my constituency where we find tremendous inaccuracy. Even on election day it was tremendously inaccurate for that reason.
Ms Charles: There is no doubt that it is a significant problem. The way we dealt with it during the last event was to ask electors who were providing us with new information where they had come from, what their previous address had been. With the elector's permission, because the legislation does not allow us to remove electors from the list without their initiating the action, we were able to make those changes but only under those conditions.
The Chair: mebody else had to do the follow-up, make phone calls, get permission and so on.
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the problem for the future with targeted revision of that kind or any kind of revision mechanism for the high mobility areas, if we found new people at those addresses, the legislative proposals we would be making to you could take that into account and allow election officers to remove from the list the names of the previous occupants of the residences. That would solve the problem. That is something we will be looking at.
.1115
Obviously we are presenting to you our proposal on how we are proceeding. We don't have answers to all the questions. Otherwise we would not need to have the pilot projects we are carrying out.
The Chair: No, but that is why we are making comments.
Mr. Kingsley: And that is why it is appreciated.
The Chair: Mr. Hermanson, I think you had questions.
Mr. Hermanson: I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, and I will make them rather brief. Hopefully, if answers are as brief as they can be and we still get the information, you will tell me when my time has expired and we can carry on.
Thank you again for appearing before the committee. It is always a pleasure to have you,Mr. Kingsley, and your staff here.
I want to get into the estimates for a few minutes. The bulk of the moneys being requested for Elections Canada is listed as expenses of elections. There is really no breakdown or explanation given for the $19.5 million. I wonder if you could just briefly outline whether these are operational costs. Certainly it is not expected in our contingency fund for byelections because that would be a supplementary estimate. I am just a little confused as to what the $19.5 million covers.
Mr. Kingsley: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the director of finance, Mrs. Vézina, to answer the question.
Ms Janice Vézina (Director, Elections Financing, Elections Canada): The $19.5 million includes preparation costs for the next event, whatever that might be and whenever that may occur. It is restocking activities, all the election readiness, event readiness activities that we must undertake to be ready at any time for an event. In addition it includes the costs of electoral geography activities and any redistribution activities. They are included as well in the $19.5 million.
Mr. Hermanson: That leads me to a question I have further down my list. We have just completed debate of Bill C-69, I believe it was, the redistribution bill. If you have it at your fingertips, how much did the redistribution cost prior to the suspension of the process? How much will it cost to bring Elections Canada back up to the level where it was at the time of suspension?
In other words, how much funding will be required to get back to the level of progress that was made at the time of suspension and where is that reflected in the estimates? It is probably in the $19.5 million. I think you have answered that.
Mr. Kingsley: If I may, I will just take two seconds or maybe thirty to make sure we are on the same net, because the answer may be more complex.
Mr. Chairman, our 1995-96 estimates in terms of redistribution are based strictly on existing legislation. They are not anticipating passage of Bill C-69. We are not mandated to forecast what the House of Commons will or will not do, as I have mentioned on previous occasions. We have to complete the exercise should Bill C-69 not see the light of day. Approximately $365,000 is budgeted in 1995-96.
As for the redistribution exercise as it stands now with the reports at the stage where they are, which is that all the commissions have reported back, my recollection is that the amount expended so far is around $5.5 million.
Mr. Hermanson: In other words, if Bill C-69 did not receive royal assent by mid-June, if we went through the summer recess and it looked as if we would have to stay with the old, no, that wouldn't work. If the bill passes you would still have to start the new process even though the process may not be to the point where when an election is called the time requirements would be fulfilled. Then we would still have to revert to the old maps.
Are you in a bit of a dilemma because of this?
Suppose Bill C-69 were not to pass until the fall - say the Senate held it up - are you in a difficult position because then it becomes very doubtful as to whether or not the new legislation will be enacted in time for the next election, if it should be in late 1997 or early 1998?
.1120
Mr. Kingsley: Bill C-69 must pass by June 22, 1995.
Mr. Hermanson: Or else we revert to the old.
Mr. Kingsley: Otherwise I automatically go back to the exercise under the existing legislation and that is the end of Bill C-69 unless it is resurrected, which is another ball of wax.
Mr. Hermanson: Then the cost is $365,000 in this fiscal year.
Mr. Kingsley: To complete the exercise in terms of redistribution under the existing legislation.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand that.
Mr. Kingsley: That does not take into account estimates in 1995-96 to continue the computerization of the maps and so on, which is a separate exercise.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand. On page 29 of the estimates you referred to a centre of electoral excellence. What would the cost of the centre be and where is this reflected in the estimates?
Mr. Kingsley: While we look for that answer, Mr. Hermanson, you may wish to proceed with another question and save time that way.
Mr. Hermanson: Certainly. Do you know or do you have a projection of the total cost of the three byelections held in February?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. I mentioned during my presentation that we were still forecasting the byelections to cost under $1.75 million. That includes reimbursement to candidates and that is why final amounts are not definite. However we are staying with those estimates.
Mr. Hermanson: I have another question, then. Talking about reimbursement to parties and candidates, how much of the total were reimbursements to the parties and the candidates from those byelections? Do you know those numbers?
Mr. Kingsley: We can look for what we have estimated the reimbursements would be based on the electoral results. Perhaps Janice could answer that and the previous question as well.
Ms Vézina: The answer to your previous question is that at the present time that activity will be absorbed within ongoing activities. Hence the delay in finding the amount.
The answer to your second question is that we have estimated between $150,000 and $200,000 for reimbursement of candidates, but that depends on what the candidates file in their election expense return.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you know the reimbursement for the parties?
Ms Vézina: There is no reimbursement to parties in a byelection.
Mr. Hermanson: Do I have any more time, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: Sure, Mr. Hermanson, go ahead. We are not particularly under time pressure this morning. I want to make sure you get your answers, and I know you missed your chance on Tuesday.
Mr. Hermanson: This may relate to the centre of electoral excellence but the estimates indicate that we provide electoral assistance to emerging democracies around the world. You mentioned that in your presentation, Mr. Kingsley. How much did that cost in 1994-95 and how much is budgeted for the coming year?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, this provides me with an opportunity of explaining how Elections Canada participates in these missions.
The only contribution made by Elections Canada is in terms of staff time when it is an employee of Elections Canada who actually goes out on a mission. We get reimbursed by CIDA, Foreign Affairs, or another government agency - but those are the two principal ones - for travel, for lodging and for other things. If we recommend a provincial colleague, which we often do, the province picks up the salary dollars. If we recommend and if we utilize the services of a consultant, we do not pay for the consultant.
.1125
Elections Canada's contribution is strictly, for example, the salary of the assistant chief electoral officer who will be heading up the OAS mission in Haiti which is going on now for its forthcoming election. When the uth African election was held, Mr. Gould once again spent a significant amount of his time there. In effect the contribution from Elections Canada on the international scene is in terms of salary dollars not being reimbursed.
I have estimated in the past that this varied between $50,000 and maybe $150,000 to $200,000 a year, depending upon how busy we were that year and who it is that was actually sent. Pre-referendum and pre-1993 general election I was very reluctant to send people out because we had to focus on where our bread is buttered, which is Canada.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you know the entire cost to the federal government of these endeavours, or do we have to check through the estimates? For instance, do we have to check the estimates relating to CIDA to put this all together to determine the cost?
Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps you can get a better indication by what I related to you, perhaps not as directly as I should. Certainly it wasn't in the written portion. Right now we are in the throes of signing an agreement with CIDA and with foreign affairs whereby for one year they will fund us $900,000 and some. I would expect that plus another $0.5 million would tell us what the cost is for different forms of electoral assistance in different countries for the forthcoming year.
Mr. Hermanson: You think the entire cost would save you less than $1 million, or would it be more?
Mr. Kingsley: No, I am saying approximately $1.5 million.
Mr. Hermanson: To your knowledge $1.5 million to the Government of Canada is the nearest.
Mr. Kingsley: That is my estimate based on my knowledge but it is not an accurate thing where I am relating numbers. It is based on what I know about what is to go on. I think I know most of what is to go on in electoral assistance.
Mr. Hermanson: You talk about keeping Elections Canada in a constant state of electoral readiness and I recognize that must be quite a task. I have an interest in whether or not it is feasible to have fixed election dates. We could do that for both general elections and byelections if they were at fixed times during the year.
Do you have any idea how much legislated statutes would reduce your costs as far as election preparedness goes if we had fixed election dates?
Mr. Kingsley: The straight answer is that I do not know what this would be. We would have to look at it in detail. However what I wish to say to you is that through the strategic planning exercise that we carry out we only purchase what needs to be purchased ahead of time. We predetermine what it is that can be purchased at the last minute. In terms of expenditures for goods and services it would amount to approximately the same thing. As for whether or not there would be other forms of savings, we would have to take a very deep look at it before I would make a commitment and agree to a precise number. That is also assuming that you could reconcile it with the Constitution of Canada.
Mr. Hermanson: A large portion of the $19.5 million is for election readiness. There should be some way of determining what portion of that could be eliminated if you were not in a constant state, if you knew the election was going to be in the fall or the spring, whether it be a byelection or a federal election.
Mr. Kingsley: There is no doubt that a large amount of the $19.5 million is due to that because of the fact that we have to be ready. By the way, when we say election ready we also mean referendum ready. I just wanted to remind the committee of that. There is referendum legislation on the books in Canada and it does not say that the Chief Electoral Officer shall exercise judgment and determine whether or not he thinks there shall eventually be a referendum or election. It says to be ready.
.1130
One would also have to look at the legislation in terms of fixed dates if one were to realize any savings and if there were any savings.
I will say, Mr. Hermanson, looking at how we are proceeding now, I do not think I could pinpoint very significant savings this morning in terms of having a fixed calendar. Arguments can be made on other grounds than election expenses. Our strategic planning sector and the operations sector are very small - certainly the strategic planning sector with three or four people - to handle all the election readiness stuff. There would be an impact but I cannot say that it would be large. I cannot estimate what it would be this morning.
Mr. Hermanson: That is a fair answer.
You speak in the estimates about technological change. I am thinking particularly of the north where it boggles the mind to think of the vast stretches between very small, remote communities. Is there any discussion or investigation of how we might be able to use electronic means for voting in these parts of the country?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, there is. There is a Canadian firm, which I am sure most people know, called Maritime Telegraph and Telephone. It has set up a small corporation that has been utilized by provincial political parties for leadership campaigns and national political parties for other reasons.
The Chair: We all heard about that.
Mr. Kingsley: In effect the technology it has developed is quite impressive. I personally visited the company in Halifax and recently people from the company came to Elections Canada in Ottawa to brief us further about its system. In my view this is something we will definitely have to take into account and the way to take it into account is to utilize the avenue of byelections to do trials.
Before we would engage in such a trial I can assure you that we would test it so that we definitely know it can work in terms of the telephone technology and the computer technology which are related. If there is one thing for which we have established a bit of a reputation it is the fact that we only introduce technology after we have tested it in real situations. From there we could perhaps go into broader applications.
The area you have indicated is the one that would be of primary interest to us and the north would be the example. I can think of Nunatsiaq with an area of 3,400,000 square kilometres. With the number of electors there it is obviously quite spread out. This would be a most helpful means of getting people to vote.
Mr. Hermanson: I applaud you on that approach. I think that is a very wise and prudent approach and it is very forward looking.
The estimates are drawn up according to Treasury Board directives. You mention in your report that they are confusing, repetitive and often not as informative as they might be. Have you done any investigation as to how the format might be changed or made more clear regarding your spending plans at Elections Canada?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. We have prepared our budgets along management lines, that is to say we know how much money we will be spending in each directorate. We know how much money we will be spending or have budgeted for each project. We know the standard objective for each project. These are data that we have in our possession at this time.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you make that public?
Mr. Kingsley: We do not make it public in the sense that there is no requirement to make it public. If ever the committee is interested, I would be more than happy to share that with the committee and to provide explanations about how we do it. We have done it so that in managerial terms I can manage Elections Canada and the management team when it comes to expenditures rather than just rely on what is necessary when it is such a huge federal system. Inside Elections Canada we have it broken down, as I have indicated to you.
.1135
The Chair: Mr. Hermanson, if I may interrupt, if you don't mind I will move on. I have enjoyed your line of questioning very much.
Mr. Hermanson: I just have one more question that kind of follows that.
The Chair: All right, one more.
Mr. Hermanson: Then I will be a good boy.
The Chair: I am not worried about shutting you up; I just think it is in fairness to the others.
Mr. Hermanson: I appreciate your tolerance.
You talked about the problem between the statutory and the votable portion. You suggested making the estimates entirely statutory. It struck me as rather odd that Elections Canada, which is an image of support for democratic principle, would want to move all the spending into a category where Parliament cannot effectively change it through a vote in the House. As you know, if it is not in the votable portion of the estimates, we have in fact lost our franchise in regard to reviewing the estimates.
Would you consider moving in the other direction and having more of the estimates in a votable manner so that Parliament could review those estimates and actually change them through the democratic process rather than see them remain statutory?
Mr. Kingsley: The expenditures now under the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, as indicated in my introductory remarks, are 90% statutory. Through this exercise and through the previous answer I provided to you, I have indicated a readiness to share all the information with you beforehand about utilization of the statutory authority as best we can foresee it, excluding any budgeting for byelections, for a general election and for a referendum because that can never be put in the books. One cannot anticipate that.
One could have thought the general election was going to be held in October 1992 last time. What happened was that we had a referendum instead and a general election occurred in 1993.
Apart from that, this year we are sharing with the committee the budget as we forecast it and subjecting it to the review of the committee. We are making a commitment that to the extent possible we will live within that. If there are any comments about any of the activities - and I would agree we are willing to share even more information - they are certainly something the Chief Electoral Officer will want to take.
Mr. Hermanson: I am certainly not questioning your openness. I am questioning the fact that we lose the capacity either to reduce or eliminate expenses in Elections Canada because they would all become statutory. We have no executive power to affect any expenses in Elections Canada if they all become statutory.
Mr. Kingsley: Which one do you have now?
Mr. Hermanson: I think there is a vote.
Mr. Kingsley: For a portion of the administration.
Mr. Hermanson: For a portion, and you are suggesting that it be taken away from members of Parliament.
Mr. Kingsley: In light of the new workings of the committee I think one must keep that in mind, with the committee's opportunity to review beforehand.
The Chair: I think we can end this. I think it is a valid point and it is something we can discuss in our subsequent discussion.
Obviously the change to make it statutory will come in a Canada Elections Act amendment. We have heard Mr. Kingsley's answer on what he thinks. We could take it out of the act, that anything be statutory, and make it all subject to parliamentary approval as was the case in the 1960s, as I recall, except for the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand. I was just trying to determine what the rationale was.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, you probably have questions?
Mr. Langlois: Yes, but not that many, because Mr. Hermanson had a rather grand overture today.
The Chairman: Yes, that is true for everybody.
Mr. Langlois: Yes, it is like the Carmen Overture; it is quite imposing!
Mr. Kingsley, the statutory powers that you have... Pardon me, sir?
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): The Carmen Overture is not that long!
Mr. Langlois: Do you presently have the statutory power that would enable you to implement the new voting technologies Mr. Hermanson was talking about, such as electronic voting for people in remote districts? I will ask this question and I'll come back later on with another one.
.1140
Mr. Kingsley: I would like to consult one of the people with me, please. We would need an amendment to the legislation in order to introduce the voting procedure described byMr. Hermanson, that is if we were to enable people to vote by telephone or electronically.
I would have to appear before the Committee to explain how we plan to proceed and to present proposed amendments to the act.
Mr. Langlois: In 1992, during the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, which was rejected, during the debate on Bill C-69, as the chairman knows, Quebec held a referendum under its own provincial legislation. One of the issues was giving Quebec 25% of the seats. So there was an enumeration in Quebec in 1992 for the referendum.
Another enumeration was required for the federal election held in October 1993, just one year later.
Last September, another enumeration was required for the Quebec provincial election. Three weeks or a month later, there was another enumeration for the municipal elections held in major centres in Quebec. Yet there must have been another enumeration for the school board elections.
The same taxpayers have to pay for all these enumerations. Under the existing legislation, given the technical resources at your disposal, would there be any way of sharing information? I would ask you to tell me whether major or minor amendments to the act would be required. If this were possible, we would have reliable information that could be updated, without having to lay out huge amounts of money every year. In 1992, 1993 and 1994, a number of enumerations were held and the lists were all used for the same purpose.
Mr. Kingsley: You're absolutely right. The answer is that this could be done, and that was the point of our last presentation about the register of electors. We mentioned the fact that the technology required does exist, and we intend to carry out some pilot project along these lines.
In addition, we are setting up partnerships with our provincial colleagues who are interested in this project. We are also taking the municipalities into account in these exercises. The pilot project we are carrying out with New Brunswick at the moment is indicating the different needs of the various levels of government so that we will no longer have to carry out door-to-door enumeration. That is our objective, at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. In addition to having databanks that would keep the registers up to date, each electoral event would be an opportunity to update our lists of electors.
If a general election were called in Ontario, for example, the part of the databank that applies to this province could be used by the electoral authorities to prepare the list of electors. In turn, this list would be used to update the information on Ontario in the databank.
So that if a federal election were held shortly after the provincial election, the Ontario portion of the databank would be up to date. The same would go for municipal elections in Ontario. All this can be done, but we have to prove it through pilot projects.
It is possible to eliminate door-to-door enumerations in this country for electoral events in all jurisdictions. That is the objective of the project we described during our last appearance before the Committee. The savings would be huge.
A voice: [Inaudible]
Mr. Kingsley: Let me complete my answer.
.1145
I mentioned an approximate figure of $150 millions over 10 years. I believe that was the figure mentioned in a published study commisionned by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.
While I'm not familiar with all the details of the study, I believe the savings could amount to even more than $150 millions every 10 years for the country as a whole. In addition, we would have a much more accurate register; with respect to the spelling of names and adresses, postal code references, and so on. At the moment however, many jurisdictions do their enumerations by hand.
Mr. Langlois: Using the methods you've described, you could, regardless of the electoral districts, say, for example...
I will take the example of my riding. In the federal riding of Bellechasse, we have certain figures. Now, in cooperation with Quebec Directory General of Elections, we can give you, for the two provincial ridings of Montmagny - L'Islet and Bellechasse, the figures and names for the municipalities that are part of this electoral district. For electoral district no. 48 in Montreal, you could produce a list of the electors.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. The reason we can do that is that the conversion of the electoral master digital format, which is to be completed in May 1996, will enable us to take into account the boundaries of other provincial or municipal ridings.
Of course, I don't want to give the committee the impression that this is something that can be done over night, ant that no other software will be required, because each province has its own way of doing these things. However, I can tell you that as far as technology goes, this can be done and the cost will not be exhorbitant.
Mr. Langlois: What are you doing or what will you do to eliminate or include in an electoral list certain qualifications that exist municipally but not at the other levels of government? I'm thinking, for example of a corporate elector that must be enumerated at the municipal level but not included at the federal or provincial level.
Mr. Kingsley: On a national list, we would simply require a code in order to add this piece of information. The same goes for school board elections, where people vote according to their denomination. The same goes as well for the six-month residency requirement at the provincial level and the 12-month residency in the two territories at this time. And we will have to see what will happen with the three territories in 1999. But there is a way of doing all this by adding some items of information to the computerized lists. Obviously, the software would have to be changed in order to do this, but it's far from impossible.
Mr. Langlois: I would just like to ask one final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
You refer to the legislation which makes you responsible for running elections in the Northwest Territories. Is the cost of this taken out of your budget, or do you bill the Territories subsequently? Is this a federal expense or an expense paid for by the Territorial governments?
Mr. Kingsley: This is a federal expense. There will soon be a byelection in the Northwest Territories, and I'm legally responsible for it. In administrative terms, I should say that we have agreements with the electoral officials in the Territories, and they will be actually doing the work. However, when comes time to pay the bill, that will be the responsibility of the federal government. That is precisely the issue regarding elections in the Territories. The officials have told me that they would like to run their elections out of their own budgets.
.1150
It would simply involve a budgetary transfer from the federal to the territorial level, but it is not quite as simple as that. Personally, it is something that I have recommended in one of my previous reports because the territories have demonstrated that they were quite capable of managing the electoral process. For a general election in the territories, it makes a difference of some $700,000, an amount that they don't have either in their estimates or in the allocation that is granted to them. So they prefer to continue to refer to the fact that bylaw the federal Parliament has to pay for elections.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): On page 34 of the estimates there is a table of offences and prosecutions in connection with the 1992 referendum and 1993 federal election. Could you review the main types of cases that were investigated?
I have a second question. What percentage of investigations lead to charges being laid, and what was the cost of these investigations and prosecutions?
Mr. Kingsley: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would ask if Mr. Girard could serve as a witness.
The Chair: Of course, especially on his birthday. It is not a day off.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): If you allow me, Mr. Chairman, I believe that Ms Vézina is looking for the cost related to the Office of the Commissioner. If I refer to table 7, on page 34, mention is made, as you said, of a referendum and a general election. Of course, I think that the commissioner himself would be in a better position to answer your question. Still, I will attempt to give you an explanation.
Essentially, I think we can say that the compliance problems relating to the Canada Elections Act are found particularly with respect to time frames. As you know, the Canada Elections Act contains a great many offences which, in other legislations, would be administrative-type offences but which have always been considered quasi-criminal offences in terms of the Canada Elections Act. Thus, we have for instance the figure of 140 for the referendum; for the most part, these were cases where referendum committees had not met the deadline for producing their report on referendum expenses. In fact, 80% of them were about late filing.
The situation is very similar in the case of the election. Here we have some 944 cases. There are some 300 official agents who had omitted to open a bank account in order to channel all amounts that were to be remitted to a candidate and all payments to be made for electoral expenses. It is a quite technical point, but nevertheless it is a breach of the act. It requires the opening of a file. That simple technical point generates 300 files.
For the Canada Elections Act, there is as well quite often the problem of deadlines to be met in the case of official agents who disappear after the election so that we have to look for them in order to obtain the reports on expenses. In the other broad category, following an election campaign many official agents send us unused income tax receipts.
So for the main part, these are the type of offences that we deal with. It must be pointed out that in the case of more serious offences, in Canada we can boast that the Electoral Act is reasonably well respected. I know that the most serious case we came across concerned special electoral rules. Some voters had been greatly influenced to vote in a centre rather than elsewhere by people who worked in the electoral process. Obviously, there were prosecutions and convictions. That was probably the most sensitive area in the last election campaign in 1993.
I don't know if that answers your question, Mr. Malhi?
.1155
[English]
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, for 1994-95 the office of the commissioner of Canada Elections expended $629,000. For 1993-94 the amount is a very close estimate of $550,000. This includes all the costs associated with review of complaints, investigations and prosecutions. It must be remembered that we have to meet the costs of prosecutions. The attorney general is nowhere involved in any of the court proceedings. Therefore the costs are incorporated here.
Mr. Malhi: What percentage of investigations lead to charges being laid?
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: This deserves some comments. Under the Canada Elections Act, complaints must be put in a written form. When we receive a complaint, we must first determine whether we can take remedial action which would avoid going to the courts. In other cases, it is not possible. Our first instinct is to check whether the complaint is well founded. In general, there is not really any offence involved because many people are ignorant of the law; so they complain but their complaint is without basis.
Let me give you an example. There were many complaints last year about the use of electoral lists. The legislation provides that these lists can only be used for political purposes. People were complaining and writing to Elections Canada, saying that someone had used the list, that they had received something from a provincial political party and this was unacceptable. However, we took at close look at that list and noticed that it was not the federal list, but rather the provincial list that had been used. In such a case, there is obviously no investigation required. I would say that in the end, 5% of cases, at the most, require an investigation.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): First I would like to compliment you. I was not at the last meeting. I have been having some medical problems; hopefully everything is fine.
I missed the presentation on this but I am thrilled to see it here. I think this permanent registered list is a fabulous idea. If you are looking for a pilot area to try it in, I am volunteering Mississauga West. It has been called the microcosm of Canada so it is a good representative area. You have 250,000 people to get on a list there and you could really flex your muscles and see if it works.
Mr. Kingsley: We have noted that.
Mrs. Parrish: I have another question. It is a pet peeve of mine, so don't feel I am picking on you. It is about the very glitzy types of printing that crown corporations do. I have raised it in the House a couple of times and whined and fussed about it.
I am a little impressed that you would use heavy silver paper and such an exotic looking document just for an internal document. Is this a very expensive thing to print in two colours with a silver cover?
Mr. Kingsley: I will find out and come back to you.
Mrs. Parrish: I wish you would, because I find this a little gaudy for a government agency.
Mr. Kingsley: Marilyn Amendola is director of communications at Elections Canada.
Mrs. Parrish: Marilyn chose this lovely silver cover.
Mr. Kingsley: One must be fair. As a matter of fact, Marilyn joined approximately one month ago, was it?
Ms Marilyn Amendola (Director of Communications, Elections Canada): Two months ago.
Mr. Kingsley: Two months ago. Time does go by.
Mrs. Parrish: Marilyn, you did not choose this exotic thing.
Mr. Kingsley: Most of the decisions were made beforehand, but I would ask her to answer your question.
Ms Amendola: I will try to respond by saying that the publication is on recycled paper and it is in keeping with the two previous reports that were tabled, one on the referendum and one on the 35th general election. It is following a certain pattern and is in the corporate family.
I can tell you that the printing costs were approximately $9,000.
.1200
Mrs. Parrish: For how many copies?
Ms Amendola: About 3,000 copies in total.
Mrs. Parrish: That is pretty expensive, though. My math tells me that is $3 a copy. It is not bad, but it could be better. Perhaps in the future, then, if you are in charge of this, you could avoid silver. I think it is an eye-catcher but it is an internal document. It is not like we are trying to sell something; we are providing information.
I am a little familiar with the business; recycled paper is actually more expensive.
Ms Amendola: It can be. In this case it was not.
Mrs. Parrish: Okay.
Ms Amendola: Thank you for your comments. We will take them under consideration.
Mrs. Parrish: I would like to see it come back in a nice solid black and white format next time and have it cost even less.
I have another question of Mr. Kingsley. I was very privileged to participate in one of your foreign missions. I went and monitored the Ukrainian election a year ago, and I must tell you your people do not waste money. It was a very frugal operation and people worked very long hours. It was money well spent, whosever money it was.
The one thing that hit me as very odd was that we contributed $1 million worth of ballot paper to that election. It sounded like a very good idea because it was watermarked and it could not be fraudulently reproduced. Everybody was excited about the ballot paper.
When you saw the printing capability of Ukraine you realized they couldn't forge anything. The $1 million worth of paper was a total waste of our money. I am curious as to whose idea it was and who decided we would send that paper over there.
Mr. Kingsley: Obviously Elections Canada is asked for its recommendations whenever we participate in a mission about what form of contribution we can make and should be making.
Without being categorical about this, I am sure the recommendation and the decision to proceed with a contribution of paper were based on more than simply avoiding fraudulent use of paper. It probably had to do with the scarcity of paper in Ukraine and the fact that forestry products happen to be a primary product of Canada. There was a dovetailing here.
Whenever there are elections, if there is to be a contribution by Canada we try to make recommendations about where Canada excels. Paper is one of them.
Mrs. Parrish: It was interesting, if I might be permitted to comment, that a lot of the election locations were in schools. The teachers were just hysterical. What they were trying to do was figure out a way they could take the top part of the ballot off, turn it over and reuse the paper. They had never seen paper of that quality. The envy and the excitement caused by it were amazing.
The purpose of it - and I think you must have been asked for it - was so they could not produce fraudulent ballots. You should have seen the equipment over there. They use tissue paper. It is amazing.
To our credit, the Canadian observers were treated like royalty over there. They find Canada a very good country to send these missions and they are very appreciative. Americans were not treated as well as we were. Nor were the Germans. Wherever we were we were treated like kings and queens.
As I say, the people you have over there are very frugal. I would not live like they were living for three months over there; it was really rough.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate the nature of your comments.
Also about the paper, one thing I do remember is that the quantity in terms of Canadian elections was out of proportion to the electorate because of the way their legislation stipulated that the ballot had to be made up, which is more in keeping with how Europeans run elections where there are ballots for each candidate.
If there is a ballot for each candidate, you obviously have to assume that 50% or 75% of the population will vote for one candidate but you don't know which one. You cannot prejudge that. Therefore they have to print a whole slew. People walk into the polling station, choose one ballot and deposit it.
Mrs. Parrish: There were 30 candidates per ballot, roughly. To win you had to get 50% of the vote. It was almost impossible. They had to do a run-off a month later. It was an amazing experience.
Mr. Kingsley: I do remember the quantity seemed excessive in accordance with Canadian standards.
Mrs. Parrish: But it was put to good use. I think every teacher there grabbed it and used the backs of it for their kids after.
Mr. Kingsley: There you go.
Mrs. Parrish: It was well used.
My last question is probably an unfair question, but we will do it anyway. It is on the new ridings. You have been on record as saying that you cannot predict what the House will do. If Bill C-69 passes and the new riding distribution takes 17 months and if when you are doing those ridings an election is called a month or two later, will you be in shape to have all those electoral lists divided and everything ready to go?
.1205
Mr. Kingsley: In accordance with how Bill C-69 is framed, we will be able at all times to have an election, either under the present ridings or the future ones, under Bill C-69.
Mrs. Parrish: If the election were called immediately after that 17-month period, would there be no extraordinary cost for speeding things up?
Mr. Kingsley: Just to refresh everyone's memory and as Mr. Girard was reminding me as well, the legislation foresees a seven-month delay after the end of the commission to allow us to gear everything up and to allow politicians and political parties to re-gear themselves. There are only seven months as opposed to the year before, but that seven months is sufficient for us.
If an election were called and it occurred six months instead of seven months after, you will be fighting it in accordance with the present boundaries, and I will be running it in accordance with the present boundaries. We would have expended moneys to get to the point where we were only one month away, but that sum of money would not be lost because after that the redistribution would take place.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I want to go back to this report. If I ask something that has been asked already, I apologize.
The last time we had a byelection, there was a little document that had poll by poll results. Does this replace that document, or will there be a different one?
Mr. Kingsley: It does not replace it. There will be a separate one as required by law and it will be published at the end of the year as stipulated by law. This does not replace the poll by poll, but we thought we would add a bit more information than we usually do in byelection reports so that the official results are in there but not the poll by poll. We are required by law to provide you with the two reports.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, one of them is under section 195, I believe, and it is the report to the Speaker.
Mr. Kingsley: That is the one you have now and that is required by law within 60 days of the return of the writs, if I remember correctly, which is what we did.
The other one is under another section of the statute, paragraph 193(b).
Mr. Boudria: Yes, I have that in front of me as well.
Mr. Kingsley: The two are separate reports.
Mr. Boudria: Under paragraph 193(b) it has to be produced for byelections. At the end of the year we are to get that one as well.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, poll by poll.
Mr. Boudria: Yes. This one is the report in general on the election. The other one is the poll by poll results.
This does not apply to anything we can do right now because it would necessitate a change in the act, but I wonder why the act is not structured in such a way that would permit all of that to be done at once.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Boudria, you are asking exactly the same question as I was asking my lawyer at the management committee when we were reviewing the publishing plan. I said: ``Why not just issue one report?''
When you have a statute you have to respect it.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, I am not challenging that.
Mr. Kingsley: When we come back to you with proposed changes to the legislation in June, it is most probable that you will find a recommendation along the lines of what you have just suggested.
Mr. Boudria: That was going to be my next question. There is also another portion of the act under paragraph 195(1)(d) where you can make ``any amendments that in his opinion are desirable for the better administration of this act''. Presumably, then, under that section you will provide to us the recommendation to amalgamate the two reports. Am I putting words in your mouth?
.1210
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, and possibly deal with time frames as well. The very short time frames required under the statute now do mean that we expend more moneys to produce the reports than if we had a more natural amount of time. I will be dealing with all of that in my report, which is an annex to my previous report.
Mr. Boudria: That is very helpful, Mr. Chairman. That will enable us for any byelection in the future, if there ever are any in this Parliament, to do these things at once and in a more economical fashion.
I recognize that the Chief Electoral Officer did not have any choice in this case because they are two different sections and they refer to two different reports with two different time delays. One of them has a time delay of a number of days and the other one specifically refers to the end of a calendar year. Unless the byelection occurs at exactly a time that coincides with that, I suppose you have no choice.
Mr. Kingsley: No choice.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I would like to touch upon the issue of candidates in relation to their access to various premises as they campaign and the subject of interference with candidates as they campaign.
As I read the act, there is obviously an assumption that this was never a problem for Canadians because there are not any sections in the elections act which deal with either access to multiple unit residential buildings or interference with candidates as they campaign.
In terms of interference, I assume that the Criminal Code would usually suffice as a statute that would prevent an assault or a physical interference, so that may fly by itself. There is not anything else in the elections act.
In terms of access to multiple unit residential buildings, whether they be condominium, strata or rental depending on what province you are in, I was surprised to see that in Ontario in terms of access to these buildings federal candidates must rely on provincial statutes because there is no federal statute that prohibits somebody from denying access. I am wondering what the situation is in all the provinces and whether or not, given the changing nature of Canadian society, it might be time to consider rationalizing the federal act to provide for some provisions dealing with access and/or interference.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Girard to respond to Mr. Lee.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: Mr. Lee, you are partly right when you say that, until recently, it was not a real concern in Canada. In fact, there was no statute. However, there is now a section in the Canada Elections Act, that was introduced in 1993, page 5, in paragraph 82(1), that says that a candidate or his or her spokesperson can enter, and I read it in English:
[English]
``may enter any apartment building or other multiple residence during reasonable hours for the purpose of conducting the campaign''.
[Translation]
There is now something in the Act.
During the last election, there were a few problems with that section. It might be worthwhile having a clearer definition of ``reasonable hours'' - we do not all have the same definition - and also of what is a ``building'' or a ``multiple residence''.
I know that the Chairman of the committee has had some difficulties during the last campaign. Our returning officers had been told that each time it happened to contact us in Ottawa, so we could intervene. I had to do it several times.
As far as I know, it never happened that a candidate was denied access after a phone call. There was no complaint to the Office of the Commissioner. There might be some difficulties that we should clarify in that section, but I think that we already began to solve the problem by integrating that section in the Act two years ago.
[English]
Mr. Lee: There was an incident in my riding involving the candidate for another party. I became involved in a criminal court proceeding following the election. It was resolved reasonably well but there was a conspicuous absence of federal statutory direction in relation to that for the people involved. I am sure the amendments that you contemplate will try to fill that void.
.1215
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: There are two aspects to it. First, the Act is flawed because some concepts might be ill defined. Secondly, there is no violation steming from that section. That is the reason why we say: ``That is it, this is an obligation, and what is the penalty?'' So, it comes under to the Criminal Code; these are legal quibbles. Thus people might be less enclined to abide by this section because it states no penalty.
The most frequent problem has to do with residences for senior citizens. Are these considered as multiple unit residential units? It is not clear and I think that it would be in our interest to specify that for the next election.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hermanson, did you have any other questions?
Mr. Hermanson: I have one that comes out of discussion on this point.
I understand you are required by legislation to submit two reports. If this one had been changed a bit to include the poll results, could you have killed two birds with one stone and produced the same report to cover both requirements under the law?
Mr. Kingsley: No, and I asked the same question as you have just asked. The statute is clear that one report must be produced within 60 days.
Mr. Hermanson: No, I mean with the same content. Could the two reports have contained all the same content to fulfil the requirements of the legislation?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer is yes. The time frame of 60 days may be something on which I would want to come back to you. It may be that it will be 90 days instead. That would allow us to do both, but it is something like that. The answer is yes, we would be able to produce it.
Mr. Hermanson: I was saying was that if this book had the material in it that was required under both pieces of legislation, both acts, you could have produced the same document, one document, and released it at two different times to meet the requirements of the act.
Mr. Kingsley: I see what you mean. Obviously the answer to that question is yes as well.
Mr. Hermanson: The other question that was not answered - you were looking for the answer - was regarding page 29 of the estimates where the centre of electoral excellence is mentioned. What is the cost of the centre and where is it reflected in the estimates? Do you have that now?
Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps.
Ms Vézina: I believe we responded to that by saying that it was to be absorbed in the ongoing activities of the office. It is in the planning stage now.
Mr. Hermanson: Is it in a larger envelope?
Ms Vézina: No.
Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps Ms Charles could answer that as well.
Ms Charles: I don't know if that satisfies you, Mr. Hermanson, or if you wanted more information about what we were planning.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you know what the cost would be, if it is not reflected in the estimates?
Ms Charles: No. Our anticipation is that this is a redirection or an orientation that we are hoping to take in line with some of the strategic directions that we outlined in our plan.
We recognized that the demand on us to provide information and to conduct research, to act as a sort of clearing house for information in respect of electoral matters, was such that we needed to concentrate more energy and more staff time on producing products that we could send out to people upon request. We are not looking for additional funding for this project. It is more a question of the existing staff spending the necessary time and any costs would probably be considered as part of the larger envelope. It is not a major expenditure.
Mr. Hermanson: I know from being involved prior to an election that in the past some products such as maps that came from Elections Canada were provided free of charge. In other cases if you wanted more than one copy per organization, per party or whatever, there was a cost. Are these regulations statutory or are they at your discretion and have there been any changes?
Mr. Kingsley: There is some leeway. It is government policy that we are attempting to apply. In effect we charge for documents after a certain number of copies have been asked for. The other thing we are trying to do is that if something is available electronically we ask people if that will satisfy them instead of the written one. It is by policy. It is a form of partial cost recovery in accordance with my interpretation as Chief Electoral Officer of government policy in this respect.
.1220
Mr. Hermanson: Is there more demand now for a floppy disk? I know there is for the list, but even for the maps you could plug in and put them on a good computer screen with good graphics. Wouldn't that be less expensive than some of these huge wall maps that I suspect may be more costly than an actual floppy disk that could contain the same information?
Mr. Kingsley: It will be less expensive on two counts. First, if the person asks us for the floppy disk it will be less expensive than producing maps. Second, it will be less expensive for us because we will not have to keep maps on paper. We will simply keep them on floppy disks.
We will have a grandfather-father-son approach or a grandparent-parent-child approach so that there is security in what we have. I am estimating it will cost us less to do that. That is why I said earlier that May 1996 is when we think we will have completed the brunt of the computerization of the maps for electoral purposes. That includes down to the polling division.
Mr. Hermanson: Will this save Elections Canada a considerable amount of money? Have you any projections as to the total?
Mr. Kingsley: I have no projections with me right now.
Mr. Hermanson: But it certainly moves in the right direction.
Mr. Kingsley: It does move in the right direction, especially when one starts to consider the ability to share this, as was raised earlier, with other jurisdictions.
There are more than lists that can be shared with other jurisdictions. We have maps, software and expertise that can be shared as well to lower the cost of elections in Canada in general. That is why I estimate that the savings are in greater order than the $150 million that study and the royal commission mentioned every 10 years.
Mr. Hermanson: There were some new regulations in the Canada Elections Act implemented for the first time in the 1993 election, one being the $1,000 deposit instead of $500.
Mr. Kingsley: Instead of $200.
Mr. Hermanson: Instead of $200, right. The other was the 100 names on the nomination paper as opposed to 25 before. Did that pose any problems? Were there benefits you have been able to analyse from both of those procedures?
The Chair: I hoped it saved us a lot of money.
Mr. Hermanson: There were certainly more candidates. A lot of people thought there would be fewer candidates and you said there were more so it certainly did not have that impact.
Mr. Kingsley: There were 37% more candidates and obviously there is an automatic return of $500 if the candidate produces his or her report in time. It turns out to be a $500 fee, effectively.
It would appear to have been neutral. I can't say it created a demand for people to be candidates, yet there were 37% more candidates. Obviously it did not have a strong deterrent effect upon candidacies.
Mr. Hermanson: Did it have an incentive? Was there a measurable improvement to complying with reporting regulations because of the increase in the cost of the deposit?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Girard just indicated to me that in accordance with his recollection there was no major difference in that respect.
Mr. Hermanson: That is interesting. It surprises me.
The Chair: That reminds me, Mr. Kingsley, when do we expect to see the report on the expenditures of candidates, the publication that lists the expenditures of each candidate? Is that about to be made available? That is from the general election. I do not mean from the byelections.
Mr. Kingsley: The first week in June is what I just heard my people advising me, which is very soon.
The Chair: It is getting soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Kingsley, under the act, an amount of $750 is earmarked for the purpose of auditing the expenditures of the election officer. Are you in a position to analyse the impact that that additional requirement had?
An honourable member: What additional requirement?
Mr. Langlois: To have the electoral officer's reports audited by an accountant. Under the act, $750 are provided for that purpose.
.1225
Mr. Girard: This is another aspect of the Act which will have to be reviewed, in my opinion, because of this requirement to pay at least $100, especially since there has been auditors who told us ``We do not want to be paid''. The Act says that a cheque has to be issued, and therefore the Receiver General issues a cheque. This is absurd.
Another point in that regard. On the whole, auditing and refund cost approximately $1 million. Ms Vézina could probably tell you more about the problems that this creates. We've discovered that the majority of reports we get, even audited reports, contain a lot of mistakes, even if it's only adding mistakes. One can therefore wonder about the usefulness of the auditor's work in view of the quality we get and the cost to the taxpayers. One million dollars, that is a considerable sum. That's one issue we intend to address in our proposal for amending the Act.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
Mr. Boudria: May I ask a supplementary question?
The Chairman: Yes, of course.
Mr. Boudria: I don't know if I would go as far, but I wonder if there wouldn't be a middle position. Let me give you an example.
in 1984, a person who had lost the nomination for my party, the nomination which I won, decided with the enthusiastic encouragement of some of her supporters, to run as an independent candidate. She went and got her documents, filled out all the forms, and two or three days later, she announced that she wouldn't run after all. That was that. After the election, she had to go through all of this because she had picked up her candidate kit.
In cases like these, couldn't we forget about all this absurdity? She could have simply given back her kit and say ``I did not spend a cent'' and that would have been it.
The same applies to independent candidates who want to have their names on the ballot. If they don't incur any expenses, they can't just put a big zero on the package and send it back. If there are real expenses, that's another thing. I don't know if I would be ready to go as far as what you have suggested. I know I had to ask my accountant, during and after the election campaign, about how different expenses could be categorized. There must be cases out of the 3,000 or 4,000 candidates...?
Mr. Girard: There were 2,155 candidates.
Mr. Boudria: Out of those 2,155 candidates. I'm convinced that there are 1,000 candidates who had no or almost no expenses. There should be a simplified method for those who only have nominal expenses.
[English]
The Chair: Natural Law candidates.
Mr. Boudria: No. In some cases Natural Law candidates spent a whole bunch of money. As a matter of fact they are getting money back from the taxpayers, which is a matter I would like to discuss at another time.
The Chair: Mr. Hermanson wants to do it quite soon.
An hon. member: I second the motion.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, you want the large private corporations to run political parties. I do not agree with that.
An hon. member: You don't get corporate donations.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, right.
Mr. Hermanson: The facts bear it up, Don. Come on, don't make allegations that are not true. Don't make an allegation that is absolutely false.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, let the gun clubs run the political party.
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Hermanson: You are being silly.
Mr. Boudria: I am not being silly. You are the one who interjected; you bear the consequences. It was my line of questioning. You had no business interfering.
The Chair: Order. Mr. Boudria has the floor. We will resume the questions.
Mr. Hermanson: He should apologize.
Mr. Boudria: Like hell.
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Kingsley, do you have the gist of the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley: I'll try to answer if I may, Mr. Chairman.
We are at present considering what would be the best way to proceed with candidates, which you call the simplified method. You mentioned 1,000 ways, but there may be 1,200 or 800.
At the same time, I'd like to get back to the point mentioned by Mr. Girard, the obligation to hire an auditor. This has to be looked into. If there are 1,000 candidates who had no expenses, why should it be certified by an auditor? The act requires an auditor to be appointed and this is the point Mr. Girard was making.
.1230
I would like to point out as far as our report is concerned that we will put forward a series of recommendations or suggestions that we feel might be useful. There will also be a series of proposals when appropriate. I simply wanted to point that out to give you some idea of the type of report we intend to table.
Mr. Langlois: If you'll allow me, Mr. Chairman...
Mr. Kingsley, what is the purpose of the heading "personal expenses of the candidate"? If it is to let me know that Mr. Boudria had to buy four suits during the campaign, twelve pairs of socks and so on, and that he's not eligible for a reimbursement for those expenses, what's the use of having that kind of information?
Mr. Girard: I think we must go back to 1966, when the first return of election expenses was prepared, to find an explanation of that heading, as you call it.
I can't see any logic to it. We create a category where we ask a candidate to report on his expenses, but we don't really know why. The definition is not clear at all. Some candidates will report the purchase of suits, daycare expenditures or transportation costs. This section of the act must be reviewed. There is a clear interpretation problem because nobody seems to agree on what expenses should be reported. When we start defining what these are, we get involved in the subject of election expenditures. Therefore this implies a maximum ceiling. All this is presented as a whole and we cannot simply pick and choose which sections or parts we want to study in the Canada Elections Act.
This Act was tabled in 1974 some 20 years ago. The problem is that we only have to deal with this issue occasionally. When the problem arises we cope with it. Then, we forget about it because we only have to face it when there are elections. I think we never really sat down and studied these clauses. Everybody, including us, has problems with these sections of the Act. People are asking us: "In what column should I include these expenses?". So we use simple common sense and whatever we know about the Act because there is no true definition of these expenses. In fact, the definition does not really explain what these expenses are. So it is not useful in that regard.
[English]
The Chair: Our time has expired. I thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for coming today. We appreciate your contribution. I think you have had a lot of questions from members and you provided much information for the committee.
Mr. Kingsley: May I say thanks to the members of the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, because this is our opportunity to tell you what we are doing and we appreciate it.
The Chair: I am sure we will see you again soon for a review of your long-term expenditure plans.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
The Chair: Do you know when those are coming in? When do you expect to present them?
Mr. Kingsley: I am not following you, sir.
The Chair: Are all agencies not producing long-term expenditures plans that are to be brought before the committees?
Ms Vézina: Are you referring to the business plan?
The Chair: Is it called a business plan?
Ms Vézina: Yes. I just wanted to clarify. The new expenditure management system.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Vézina: The business plan is to be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat and what they call the departmental outlook is to come to the chair of each House committee.
The Chair: Do you know when that will happen?
Ms Vézina: That should be before the end of May.
The Chair: Good. As soon as I get it I will certainly let the members know.
Mr. Boudria: We have to report on the departmental outlook by June 23.
The Chair: That is the current rule. I have a feeling we will be asked to extend that rule. The committee may want to deal with that, but we will wait until we have so heard.
Mr. Hermanson, you've given notice of three motions to be considered on Tuesday. I propose we start off with those and conclude our study of the Speaker's estimates and the Chief Electoral Officer's estimates. As no witnesses will appear, that will be a discussion meeting.
We have a few other little items on our agenda, the report of the subcommittee on members' travels, for example. We may want to look at that. There is also the report of the subcommittee on private members' business which was tabled by Mr. Lee. These have not been dealt with by the committee of the whole and we may want to look at those on Tuesday. Also the motions will be dealt with on Tuesday.
[Translation]
There are three motions. Mr. Hermanson tabled two of these here and the other can be found in today's order paper. It deals with the Speaker's estimates.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I should like to withdraw a remark I made about Mr. Hermanson a while ago. Although it is quite true I believe that would be the effect of his amendment, I have no proof that it is in fact the cause of it, which is not the same thing.
.1235
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, will we be considering both motions on Thursday?
The Chairman: No, on Tuesday.
Mr. Langlois: Next Tuesday then.
The Chairman: Tuesday May 2.
Mr. Langlois: Would you agree that, no later than five minutes after beginning consideration of these two motions, the chairman call all the questions allowing us to dispose of these motions?
The Chairman: Yes, but this has not yet been decided. That's the problem.
Mr. Langlois: Very well. [Inaudible]
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.