[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 8, 1995
.1140 
[English]
The Chairman: We have a quorum.
Gentlemen, we'll proceed directly with Mr. Kingsley, who is appearing this morning in response to the committee's request concerning the outlook document for 1995-96 forwarded to the committee on May 31.
Mr. Kingsley, do you have an opening statement today or do you wish just to respond to questions from members?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer): I wish to respond to members. I do not have a statement, Mr. Chairman, but as your agenda indicates, I wish to make it clear that Mrs. Janice Vézina, director of finance, is here to help out, as is Mr. Jacques Girard, director of legal services.
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish, I think you had some questions on this outlook document.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Can I pass for a second while I gather my wits about me? Mr. Kingsley is a formidable question answerer and I have to prepare.
The Chairman: Perhaps I could ask a question then. Mr. Kingsley, the subject you're undertaking that's of interest to us is a study on, and the development of, a permanent electoral list. Can you give us any estimate of the cost of that?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the expenditures for this fiscal year, we indicated that there was approximately $500,000 budgeted for the pilot projects. As I indicated in previous testimony, once we've done the feasibility aspects and determined which databanks can apply and would give us the kind of document with which you would be satisfied in terms of a list, then we will have a much better idea of how much it would cost to implement. Then we're supposed to come back to you and let you know what that would be.
The Chairman: Are you expecting more money in the next financial year, or do you think you'll be back to us within this fiscal year after the expenditure of the $500,000?
Mr. Kingsley: If I understand the question correctly, there will definitely be a need for money in the next fiscal year and in the subsequent ones as well. To maintain a continuous register will require moneys. It's too early to tell whether or not there will be additional moneys this year. We attempted to budget for all the things that were explained when we last appeared before you as reasonably as we could, in the light of the universe as we knew it was going to unfold at that time.
.1145
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): A number of amendments to the act were undertaken as a result of the work of the Electoral Reform Commission. I apologize that I didn't have time to review your outlook document before this morning's meeting. Do you foresee any additional action to implement further recommendations as part of your planning for the next few years?
Mr. Kingsley: Certainly our objective remains for us to produce an annex to the statutory report to the 1993 general election, the 35th general election, to table with this committee and with Parliament an annex wherein we would have reviewed the changes that were made as a result of the royal commission recommendations through Bill C-114, as well as others on which no action has been taken as yet because the 1993 general election intervened in the work of the committee that was then reviewing their recommendations. I intend to come forward in the very near future and table that document, and then this committee presumably would be charged with a review of it.
This committee would then determine whether or not there are changes to be made to the statute. I may be of one mind on an issue, but the committee may disagree; that's entirely fair. To short-circuit my answer even further, the answer is yes, we will be pursuing it in a meaningful way and in the very near future.
Mrs. Catterall: What would be the timing for any possible amendments to have them completed for the next election?
Mr. Kingsley: Under the existing statute, whenever an amendment is made to the Elections Canada Act, or to the Referendum Act for that matter - because you will also be reviewing the Referendum Act in the near future, not only the regulations but the whole of the Referendum Act - there is up to a six-month implementation timeframe allowed to the Chief Electoral Officer. That means that after you pass an amendment, I have up to six months to implement it and make it operational for the next election. The moment it is operational, I issue a notice in The Canada Gazette saying it is now operational.
In practice - because I think it is important for members of the committee to know this - we were able to implement the major changes to the electoral statute that Bill C-114 introduced. We were able to introduce all of those changes, including the special ballot and the computerization aspects of all that, if my recollection serves me correctly, within six weeks. We posted a notice to that effect and notified the parties so that the candidates would be knowledgeable about it as well.
What I'm trying to say is that it's very difficult for me to imagine that there could be such a change that it would require six months. If we were able to handle Bill C-114 in six weeks, we've now demonstrated that our ability to plan, to change and to organize for change is so well honed that it's a matter of several months at the most, no matter how massive the change.
Mrs. Catterall: This is not specifically related to your outlook document, but my question arises because there's been so much publicity about the posting of electoral lists. I understand that federally we no longer do that and have not done it for some time. Is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: That is right. The statute was amended. It was required in the past but it is no longer a practice at the federal level. We have thus been able to avoid many of the problems that are surfacing now as a result of the Ontario election, in view of the fact that under that statute it is still obligatory to post the lists.
Mrs. Catterall: In terms of the outlook document, I'm very interested in this whole process. As you know, this is the first time we have done it, but in my view it's an opportunity for the committee and Parliament to have a look at your priorities and determine whether they match what Parliament feels is a priority. To me, that always means choices. What do you see as the prime choices and direction you're going to face over the next few years?
.1150
Mr. Kingsley: Based on the document you've received, which is very significantly based on the strategic plan document, ``Serving Democracy'' - this is a summary and was sent to you - there are really a number of major projects we are pursuing that we've shared with the committee.
To review some of them briefly, we have to get ready for an electoral event. There are certain tasks to perform, even if we know that normally a general election is not supposed to take place until the fall of 1997. For example, there are supplies we must get in order to meet lead time, in order to assemble all the material that needs to be assembled. Everything is not shipped individually. Things go to returning officers through the 295 districts. I think we have 30 different lots, so all of that requires preparatory time.
We're buying supplies, we're buying the ballot paper and we're printing the ballot paper with the appropriate mask. As you know, those are printed in each returning officer's riding for elections. We're getting ready the same way...we are continuing to get ready for a referendum.
It's event readiness - we now call it ``event'' as opposed to ``election'', because we have to be ready for a referendum at any time as well. That is what the Referendum Act says. That's why you're also considering the adaptation I've made to the referendum statute, which is the second item on your agenda. This is part of our being ready.
That is a major priority and that's where a lot of the money goes. You're buying supplies, ballot paper - half a million dollars in no time flat - ballot boxes, ballot screens, all of these things eat up money quickly. Forms have to be reviewed. Training videos, if they don't exist, have to be established. We're doing more of that because we're finding it vital in Canada that there be a standardized approach so that everybody has an equal chance in terms of what product is served to Canadians.
The other priority, and I've described it as my top priority, is what the chairman raised a little while back - the work we're doing on the register. To me that is top priority. I've indicated a certain amount of money that we're allocating to that.
In order to maximize the investments we've already made by computerizing the lists, we're establishing ways in which we can utilize the lists for the next event. We ran a pilot during the by-elections whereby the lists were preprinted before people went knocking on doors. We're looking at the scenario whereby if the list is too significantly changed, we at least have the list by address so that each of the enumerators knows exactly where to go and it's easy to fill out. Then in terms of data entry, 60% of your data is already entered, because that's the address portion.
There's a cut-off where if you have a 40% change in the electorate, 40% has moved, it is no longer economical to print the names of the electors, but it's still economical. We call that a capital-assisted enumeration. That was the object of the test during the by-elections and we've determined that this can save money. Organizing for that, getting the material preprinted for the next event, is major. That's another one of our main projects at this time.
We will also be doing a full referendum review of the legislation with you when you call us. About that, we have no choice. You have no choice. It's supposed to be after the end of the third year. On the Elections Act review, I will be tabling a document with you. You may decide you do not wish to proceed with anything. On the other hand, that would surprise me. Therefore, that's another one of our major projects.
We're also enhancing our planning and budgetary systems. For example, the next outlook document, if it's possible, will have more than one year for the statutory items instead of having one year for statutory items and three years for items under the administrative vote.
.1155
We're also working on a project whereby the financial information that is made available to the public will be completely computerized so that you, the Canadian public and the media will have access to everything in computerized form. I'll give you an example. The orange book about the 1993 general election expenses, which I will be sending to each one of your offices tomorrow, will be available in a machine-readable format within two weeks to anyone who is interested.
We have also embarked on a program of computerizing cartography so that by May of 1996 all electoral maps will be computerized, with all the savings and storage convenience that means. You will be able to get the map of your electoral district on a diskette if you have a machine that then helps you to understand it. It doesn't stop there, because then we can do polling divisions in a much more accurate form, if it's still necessary to go door-to-door, which is what it's looking like at this time, for at least one more general election. That's another major piece of work going on. It will also help in any future redistribution exercise, including the one due under Bill C-69, should Bill C-69 pass eventually.
I just want to make sure I'm hitting all the major projects. I think I've given you a good description, hopefully not too long and hopefully to the point, about where we're going at Elections Canada.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, do you have any questions?
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Yes. I hope you understand the relevance of this discussion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingsley, does the current Referendum Act include a review or expiration provision after a given period of time?
Mr. Kingsley: There is a review after a certain period of time. Parliament decided there should be a review every three years. There is a provision in the Act which states that the Federal Referendum Act will be reviewed by a special committee of the House. It might be a Senate committee or a joint committee. Parliament will have to make that decision as of June 23rd.
Mr. Langlois: In light of the question I just asked, and given the fact that the clerk drafted certain emergency procedures, this committee will probably be mandated to review the Referendum Act, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Probably. The House would have to adopt a motion to that effect.
Mr. Langlois: Very well.
Mr. Kingsley: You would have to decide whether you would work with a Senate committee or whether you would strike a joint committee, because that's possible under the Act.
Mr. Langlois: I would like another clarification. Under the current Referendum Act, is it possible to hold a national referendum on an issue other than the Constitution?
Mr. Kingsley: No. The referendum can only be held on constitutional issues.
Mr. Langlois: In 1992, why was our province set apart in the general referendum, and why were we allowed to hold our own referendum? Is there a provision which allows the governor in council to determine which provinces can hold their own referendums?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, there is one such provision which allows the governor in council to determine which provinces and territiories can hold a referendum. It might be nine provinces and two territories. It might only be one territory. It might be three provinces. Or it might only be one. Any combination is possible.
Mr. Langlois: You were probably closely following the referendum, because it involved your office. How did that whole matter come about when the issue concerned the federal Parliament of Canada, and therefore basically all Canadians?
.1200
There is a provision in the Act which stipulates that a referendum may be held in a single province. However, I must admit that I don't quite understand the principle of this provision.
Why does the federal Parliament...
Mr. Kingsley: I must admit...
Mr. Langlois: I understand it was a political decision.
Mr. Kingsley: I was going to say that I don't sit in on Cabinet discussions.
What are the considerations? When I'm asked to explain how something can be done, I provide an explanation. Why was the decision taken to do something? I wasn't at the table, so I don't know the answer.
Mr. Langlois: Fine. Thank you.
You said that you were more or less always on standby. I understand why your in a state of alert. If, this afternoon, Mr. Chrétien went to the governor general and asked him to dissolve Parliament, I'm sure you'd feel a rush of adrenalin. The state of alert would kick in immediately. If Parliament were dissolved this afternoon, would you be ready to jump into action?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, but please allow me to explain.
Yes, we would be ready. But we would have to take shortcuts.
The reason we like to be prepared - and I was going to mention this earlier, when Mrs. Catterall raised the issue - is that we have time-consuming purchasing mechanisms, since we have to call for tenders if possible. If it's possible, we try to call for tenders. But if ever there is a hasty election, as far as we're concerned, we would know which shortcuts to take and we'd take them.
We are in a state of advanced readiness. I know this because I have a system which lets me know what our state of readiness is. The latest reports indicate that we are ready should an election be called.
Of course, If you ask me that question in three months, I'd say that we are even more ready than we are today. Today, I'm saying that we are more ready than we were three months ago. Three months ago, I would have made sure that we were ready.
People know that if there are no calls for tenders for our big contracts, we'll pay more. So we try to give taxpayers the biggest bang for their buck by following airtight procedures.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Kingsley, are you aware of the bill which is currently before the National Assembly in Quebec and which changes the way the census is taken?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, I am aware of it.
Mr. Langlois: In your opinion, should the federal government follow Quebec's example?
Mr. Kingsley: I'd ask you to be a little more specific. I'm aware of the bill. I understand what it's all about, but what part of the bill are you referring to?
Mr. Langlois: I'm referring to the way the census is carried out, to the issue of power.
As I understand it, under the bill, enumerators will have more control when they enumerate voters. The way it's done now, a voter simply registers. But unless you're dealing with a seven year old child, the enumerators simply register a person. But from now on, they will be able to ask questions, to demand I.D. and to ask probing question.
The way I understand it, the new system will be a combination of a review committee which studies complaints and the fact that a person has to provide evidence to make the case that they should not be taken off the voters' list. I think it's a combination of these two aspects.
I'll come back to this issue when the National Assembly will have debated the matter, and when we have the final version of the bill, because I'm basically asking you to speculate on something, because that's what I'm doing myself.
Mr. Kingsley: Then perhaps it's better if I don't answer.
Mr. Langlois: It might be better if you don't answer.
Mr. Kingsley: If I told you what I thought, it might make your hair stand on end.
Mr. Langlois: That says it all.
This is my last question. France has just elected a new president. I have the impression that the French electoral process is extremely slow. We've seen voters walking around with piles of paper. People were exchanging ballots outside polling stations.
I don't want to boast, but I think Canada is a leader in the West in terms of its electoral system. So I think we should maintain our leadership position, and I'm convinced that that won't change. Speaking for myself, I can only congratulate you and your team for the work that Elections Canada accomplishes.
.1205
That's probably the most reassuring aspect in our political system: it's possible to have partisan debates, indeed, that's why we are in politics, but we can be sure that those who apply the election rules haven't made any major mistakes. In fact, there have been very few court actions in that regard.
So I believe we have a good system, but it didn't just fall into our laps. I think all Canadians should understand that our democratic traditions were developped by people who, like your predecessors, fostered their growth in Canada. It's something I'm quite proud of, Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Allow me to say a few words so everyone around the table understands. Under the French system, ballots are given in advance to parties and candidates. These people then try to convince voters to cast their ballots in their favour, and they make sure voters come into the polling station with the right ballot. It's part of French tradition.
But in our system, the ballot is tightly controlled, as you know. We have control over ballots by printing the same number on both stubs. A voter has to hand over his ballot, with the stub still attached, and the returning officer makes sure that the numbers correspond. In France, however, there's a completely different tradition for ballots. That's why people can walk around with their ballots. The French control their elections differently.
Mr. Langlois: I have a little anecdote for you, Mr. Kingsley, regarding what happened in my own riding during the last elections. No one complained because it was all above board. Everyone acted in good faith. In order to speed up the process, and with everyone's agreement, one of my returning officers decided to remove the stubs so that it would be easier to process the ballots. There was no fraud and no one contested the vote.
Mr. Kingsley: Some things I'd rather not hear.
Some honourable members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish, please.
An honourable member: I will contest your election.
Some honourable members: Oh, oh!
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: I'd like to go back to this document. I'm interested in the outlook document. You don't get into detail, unless I've skipped it, on this permanent voters list. It's a pet project of mine, particularly in my area.
First, as for this permanent voters list, in my opinion a lot of the enumerating that's being done now must have a lot of mistakes. Some of my near and dear elderly relatives do it for you, and I'm not impressed with the quality of what they do on a day-to-day basis. This permanent voters list in the long run, having kids added on as they become of voting age -
Mr. Kingsley: It's 18.
Mrs. Parrish: It's 19.
Mr. Kingsley: It used to be 19 in British Columbia, but they made it 18.
Mrs. Parrish: My munchkin is voting today. I had to phone to make sure she got out to vote. She's my baby.
How much money do you think it's going to save? How much is it going to improve accuracy? And what is more important to all of us - how will it make it easier for people to vote?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the money saved, you and I have agreed that it was unfortunate you could not attend the presentation on this, because a number of those issues were addressed. But I can give you a shorthand answer.
In terms of the money saved, say we wind up with a system that is only federally based. There would be no involvement of the provinces or the municipalities. We may be looking, at best, at a break-even situation. It's still worthwhile on a break-even basis because we must find a way to do away with enumeration.
If the provinces, a number of them or all of them, come on board, that's when you start to get savings. This was demonstrated by one of the studies of the royal commission. Over a ten-year period following the normal cycle of elections - I don't think they were looking at municipal elections then, just federal and provincial - they were indicating that in the order of $150 million could be saved for the Canadian electorate over that period of ten years. I suspect if we go even more into municipalities and so on, the economies start to get quite substantial.
.1210
Mrs. Parrish: If I might interrupt you for a second, is it possible to get a permanent voters list of Canadian citizens now that we have rules in municipal elections such that you have to be a Canadian citizen - I wonder if you do - to vote? It would be a complete, permanent list so that all levels of elections could be run from those same lists. That would mean enormous savings, wouldn't it?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer is a qualified yes. I heard ``no'' here, but the answer is a qualified yes. The reason it's a qualified yes is because -
Mrs. Parrish: Because you're the boss.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kingsley: I want that medal.
The quality of an elector is defined differently in municipal and provincial elections. Provinces impose a six-month residence. The two territories impose a one-year residence. We don't impose any time of residence. You're a Canadian.
If you move from Newfoundland to British Columbia, for a federal election you vote in British Columbia, which is where you reside. It doesn't matter if you've just moved to British Columbia. In the provinces it doesn't work that way. That created quite a problem, by the way, when there were two referenda being run at the same time in Canada. Some Quebeckers, who had been in the province less than six months because they had moved, went to the Supreme Court and did not win. They were deprived of their right to vote.
What we would have to do is find a way in our system - with computers it's easy - to track those variables about those qualities of electors that are specific to each jurisdiction. It adds a little bit -
Mrs. Parrish: Could you issue a voter card that had various codes on it? You would go to vote, and it says you're eligible in Ontario, in the region of Peel, and in a federal election? Is there not a coding system you could put on it such as bar codes?
Mr. Kingsley: The possibility of utilizing a card is always there, but we're trying to find a way whereby you don't even need a card and you can still achieve all that. We still have to write to you and every elector when the election is declared to say you are so and so and you reside at this place. We intend to be able to do that and to have an 80% to 85% reliability rate so that, through revisions, you're handling the 15%, 20%, 23% that may be off. Those are reasonable numbers I'm mentioning. That way, you don't even need a card. If we can avoid giving Canadians another card, we will.
Mrs. Parrish: For this you would get the Order of Canada, never mind a medal.
Mr. Kingsley: You keep upping the ante in ways I can't resist.
Mrs. Parrish: When I was in Ukraine last year, everyone had to have a passport to vote. This was not considered onerous. People didn't mind that at all. It was very customary for them.
I notice in your overview that you talk about the handicapped and people who have difficulty voting. In Ukraine they used to take the ballot box out. In the middle of the day, everything stops. They have a portable ballot box. They go out. The person votes because they have a valid passport. They're allowed to vote. Then they trot back with the locked box.
Having a card, to me, would not be onerous.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate getting that advice. It does add to the cost, but it's certainly not something that is out of the question. But if we can find a way such that we don't even need to issue a card, we'll come back to you and tell you how we found it. You could look at it.
However, one must also remember Mexico, for instance. They all have their card. They carry it all year round, not just for electoral events but for other purposes. Customs vary from country to country. In Ukraine or whatever country, it may be that they're used to having to produce documents for various things. In this country people are not used to having to produce documents for a whole slew of things, and elections is one of them. We even put on our little slip that you don't need to bring this in to vote; you just show up there. If your name is there and you know your address, you'll get to vote. So one must be careful before changing the underlying values and customs of Canadians so that they can accept change much more readily.
Mrs. Parrish: We're learning that this week.
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): What type of services do you provide to persons having disabilities and literacy problems and also the people for whom English or French is not a first or second language?
.1215
Mr. Kingsley: Number one, in terms of persons who are disabled, it is now in the statute that every polling station - not only the advance polls and not only the offices of returning officers, but every polling station - must be accessible for all disabled persons. That is not only physically but also in terms of the services that are extended to them, and assistance can be provided to them as well. For example, a blind person can vote alone, once he or she has been told how the system works, with the template that is provided for that purpose. These are all systems that have been developed with the various associations for the disabled.
In terms of reaching out to the others, our brochures that contain the fundamental information are produced in around 35 different languages that hit the 35 main languages other than French and English. As well, a person can be attended and assisted at the poll. Moreover, we retain the services of firms that specialize in minority-language press, so that our ads during an electoral event, be it a referendum or an election, are printed in those magazines as they are in mainstream magazines and newspapers for other Canadians.
In a nutshell, those are some of the main measures we've implemented and will continue to implement and perfect.
Mr. Malhi: What about if there are more than 30 or 35 languages? There are more languages too - more than 35 languages.
Mr. Kingsley: I'm guessing that's the number. But we looked at it, and I think if anything beyond several thousand people speak a language, we print the material. I don't want to leave the impression that we print everything. We print an essential document, a brochure, that explains the Canadian system to them, and we make it available to them through their organizations, through linkages we've developed.
Mr. Malhi: You just go to the newspapers or to TV or radio too?
Mr. Kingsley: We also go to television stations and to the radio stations that appeal to those members of the electorate to put our ads that say, for example, there's a federal election, polling day is such a day, and enumeration starts on such a day and ends on such a day. It's the same thing with revision, so they can hear the message in their language.
Mr. Malhi: What about destitute people who have no transportation on election day. Suppose the candidate from any party wanted to pick him or her up? Sometimes they feel they're being pressured to vote for that party.
Mr. Kingsley: No. I think it is well accepted in Canadian custom that candidates can offer transportation. They must refrain from attempting to exercise any kind of pressure when the person is in the vehicle, but this is part of what is done by practically every candidate in the land. As well, there is public transportation for the disabled that is available generally in Canada now, and they make special arrangements with them. Moreover, one must remember that the special ballot, which is very easy to obtain, is also available for persons who are disabled, and they can vote until the third day before polling day.
So there are all these measures. Of course in the future - because we were talking about different things - we're also looking into the possibility of certain groups to eventually vote by electronic means, a telephone and others. But I will want to make sure we're doing this on a very controlled basis initially so that the thing does not run amok on us. I think we have established a certain reputation for being careful in how we introduce change, even when it's major change such as computerization of lists, and this is one of the other things that I think would improve the situation for those persons.
.1220
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): In the foreign countries you studied, was there a correlation between permanent voters lists and statutory obligations to vote or be registered? In other words, was there compulsory voting and compulsory registration? Was there a link always or generally with the system of permanent voters lists?
Mr. Kingsley: That's a very interesting question, because I never saw the relationship. I know that I can get to the data, because whenever I come back or whenever we write to another jurisdiction, we have the data on the country, but I have not made a correlation between the two factors. It's an interesting point.
Mr. McWhinney: I know it's true in relation to some of the countries you've generally studied, and I wondered if it was almost the norm. It obviously is easier to maintain a permanent voters list if there is a statutory obligation, with penalty attached to citizens who don't vote or don't register, or both. It would be interesting to see if in a sense the condition of the success of a permanent voters list is some system of statutory obligation to vote or to register. That would be an interesting point to follow up.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, it is. It does remind me of conversations I had with my Australian counterparts.
Mr. McWhinney: I was thinking of the Australian example particularly.
Mr. Kingsley: Their view seemed to be that the obligation to vote, because it carried a penalty, was respected, but that people started to understand that the trick was to stay off the registration. Therefore, people who were not interested in voting started to abstain from registration and there was no way of tracing them. This is what they felt was the Achilles' heel of their system, in terms of forcing people to vote.
Mr. McWhinney: The other thing I would ask you relates to the issue of whether one should carry a card. I was struck, and I think it's obviously true, that there is less psychological resistance in new democratic countries that have been used to carrying papers. One thinks of eastern Europe, where it's an obligation, almost a precondition, of being able to move from one part to another or obtain railway tickets, but also South Africa, for example the caste laws.
Is there any informal system checking on fraud or suspected double voting, or when the party scrutineers object? Do officials ask for production of identity documents other than the card?
Mr. Kingsley: The poll officials have the authority, whenever they suspect anything like that, to ask for identification of a person and if the identification is missing, to ask for sworn testimony.
Mr. McWhinney: They would have to swear an affidavit, with obvious penalties attached.
Mr. Kingsley: Witnesses sign the sworn testimony, and so on and so forth. They have that discretion, and I know it is utilized. I would not say it is utilized in every polling station in the land, but I do know there are instances where it is utilized whenever there is suspicion. Of course, the suspicion can arise in the representatives of candidates, because they are there and can say they are recommending this to the poll officials.
Mr. McWhinney: Let me ask you a rhetorical question here. Would it surprise you to know that within Canada, in terms of party political primaries and the vote for contested nomination, that identification is quite often asked in cases of suspected impropriety, and sometimes passports are produced? Would that strike you as an interesting development?
Mr. Kingsley: Do you mean to require this of the Canadians?
Mr. McWhinney: No. As you know, political parties here are not, as they are in the laws of the United States and some European countries, part of the constitutional processes. They're not constitutional organs. But there is a practice that has developed in contested party primaries in Canada to ask for identification. In some cases people produce passports or driver's licences. That would tend to suggest that there is less resistance to the notion of some sort of pass or identification.
.1225
Mr. Kingsley: That would tend to suggest that. There is also the fact that, with the statute being amended through Bill C-114 where people can register on polling day, in order to register on polling day they must provide satisfactory proof.
Mr. McWhinney: What do you consider satisfactory proof. Would it be a driver's licence?
Mr. Kingsley: There are a number of documents that are satisfactory proof, including a driver's licence or anything or any series of documents that attests to the person's name and address.
Mr. McWhinney: Is that the case even though it's not a federal document?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, that's the case even though it's not a federal document. It can be a driver's licence. To attest to your new address, if you're someone who recently moved and you have a Bell Canada bill with your name on it and your new address, we'll accept that as proof of address. We will also require something else that has your name and signature on it, so we can attest to them. If you have one document that does all three, such as a driver's permit, then that's okay with us as well.
Mr. McWhinney: Would something of the sort that Mrs. Parrish was suggesting not be opposed by your general line of thinking?
Mr. Kingsley: I think the point being made here is that what is already under the statute are pieces of identity that already exist.
Mr. McWhinney: They are rather scattered, unofficial ones.
Mr. Kingsley: Right, whereby Mrs. Parrish was introducing the notion of a separate card for electoral purposes. That was the point to which I was reacting in terms of our trying to establish a system whereby you don't need that, if we can arrange the system otherwise.
Mr. McWhinney: From the examples you brought up, the best example was in countries where there is an identity card, a sort of internal passport, that the people carry. You were citing that, I think, for eastern Europe.
Mr. Kingsley: Right. As you say, those are countries either in eastern Europe, where they were so accustomed to the idea that anybody could ask them for their identification at any time, that it's easy for them to accept that this would be necessary for an election - or a country like Mexico, where this electors card became a very important document. It was the first time there was any document that attached to a whole layer of the Mexican public. More than 50% of them finally got their hands on a piece of plastic with their names, their photos and everything on it. This started to open doors for them in terms of banking and other programs.
Mr. McWhinney: As usual, I'm grateful to you, Mr. Kingsley, for the very thoughtful comments.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you.
The Chairman: I have three more requests for questions of this witness.
We do have a second item of business today, and there's a time limit on it. Mr. Kingsley requires any comments of the committee by June 16, 1995, on the referendum regulations, which is the second item of business.
Our first item is the financial forecast of the Chief Electoral Officer. Our questions seem to be going much more to how elections are conducted rather than the financial forecast. I'm quite prepared to continue as long as members realize that we do have this little time problem on the second item.
I'm happy to give a second round to anybody who wants it, or a first round for you, Mr. Bonin. There's no problem, but I warn that we may be pressing ourselves a bit on time. As long as members are prepared to stay and deal with the second one, that's fine. We've scheduled something else for next Tuesday, and these comments are required by June 16, which leaves us a little short if we're going to complete this in a timely way. We need to do the second item today, with great respect, and I urge members who have questions now to bear that in mind.
Mr. Bonin (Nickel Belt): It pertained to what was being discussed but didn't pertain to what you have on your agenda, so I'll pass.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley may want to stay for the second part in any event, and maybe we can deal with it afterwards, if that's all right. We can come back to this item after we've dealt with the regulations.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have only one question to ask. I see Senator Prud'homme is present and I would like to ask if you re-introduced in Bill C-69 a constitutional guarantee of 25% for Quebec.
The Chairman: Order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Langlois: I'll address my question to Mr. Kingsley and to Mr. Girard and drop two questions out of three, in order to expedite things.
.1230
As I said a little earlier, I was very satisfied with that electoral process, but I'm less satisfied on another point, and I think the French system is better when it comes to contesting an election. I won't mention the votes that are currently being contested. Let me give you an example. Quebec has an old law governing contested votes. In 1966, a candidate was elected in the Saguenay riding and his election was contested. He was ultimately declared the loser in 1971, and the vote was therefore declared null and void. But since he was defeated in 1970, he was able to serve his entire term in office. So if a vote is contested, particularly in Quebec, I believe it should first be appealed at the federal level. Perhaps you can provide some clarification, but there's something absolutely inappropriate about this, and it is easier to win a shady election than to think the courts will fix the problem. I don't know if it's possible to have a special tribunal which could settle these issues quickly, and which could hear appeals on specific issues of law, as does the Conseil d'État in France. This way, it would be possible, if need be, to have a decision regarding the outcome of a by-election within six to nine months.
Mr. Kingsley: You raise a valid point. The federal law governing contested votes goes back to Confederation. It written in beautiful English, but it's outdated; it's written in beautiful French, but it's outdated. The last time a vote was contested under this law was after the 1988 federal election, in the riding of North York. The case dragged before the courts for a long time, and it was finally decided that a by-election should take place. It did, in 1990, two years later. I remember because I had just been appointed and I believe it was the first by-election I had to oversee. I was surprised to learn that it had taken so long to resolve the matter. I say this without casting blame on anyone, because if you follow the legal process, it takes time.
I also believe the issue you raised should be studied more closely, especially concerning contested votes, so that decisions are made more quickly. It's also very important that voters be represented by the person they really elected, and that there be no trace of fraud.
The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, do you have another question?
[English]
Mrs. Catterall: I'll pass, in light of the other item on our agenda.
The Chairman: Could we move then to the next item on the agenda, which is the briefing notes that have been circulated to members on the proposed regulations under the Referendum Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard is here. He is the director of Legal Services of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. I asked him to be here today so he could help us understand the regulations. Mr. Girard, do you have an opening statement or are you ready to answer questions?
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I hope I'm ready. Unfortunately, the research branch only gave me a copy of the document that you received this morning, and I haven't had time to read it. So I might not be able to answer specific questions you might raise, but I'll do my best. I also offered to meet with the staff today or tomorrow so that they can better answer your questions, if there are any, but in any case I'm available to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you had the opportunity to explain why the amendments were proposed.
The Chairman: During the last committee meeting, I did talk about that, and you answered a question about the issue today in answer to a question.
[English]
Members are aware that this is an adaptation of the act and you've been able to read that in the briefing note prepared by Mr. Robertson.
.1235
On page 9 of Mr. Robertson's briefing note it says that section 134 of the Canada Elections Act provides for the situation where a person presents himself or herself to vote after another person has apparently voted under his or her name. The poll clerk is to note any objections made by or on behalf of which of the candidates. The proposed regulation adapts this to read any objections made on behalf of the agents of registered referendum committees or witnesses and the name of that person, should this not include a reference to the name of the registered referendum committee or witness. In other words, it should be the name of that person and the name of the registered referendum committee or witness if applicable. Something like that... a small technical point?
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: I think I would agree with you, until we can check the texts more precisely, that we should in fact allow, as we do in the case of an election, for a person's mandate to remain on the lists. It might be a small omission.
[English]
The Chairman: Rather than go through this document and ask some of the questions that Mr. Robertson has raised, would it be helpful if we left it with you for a written response, Mr. Girard, and you could send it in? The committee is meeting on Tuesday next week.
Some of the questions Mr. Robertson raised - and I think they're good points - are ones you may have an explanation for, or you may agree with his comments. If there's agreement, if you or Mr. Kingsley could send us a written reply back, the committee could look at it. If members have further objections after that, we could either make a comment to you, as we're entitled to do, or simply accept your response as satisfactory in response to this document. That might be the most helpful way of proceeding, but committee members may have other questions they wish to ask and I don't wish to preclude that.
Mr. McWhinney: I think we should have a written response. It would be extremely valuable.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: That's the way it was done in 1992 and that is also how we propose to proceed. If you wish to have something by tomorrow morning, this will give committee members as well as staff the weekend to review this, so that Tuesday...
The Chairman: Monday afternoon will be quite all right and we'll have time to read the document before our Tuesday meeting.
Mr. Girard: All right!
The Chairman: Does everyone agree? Do other members have any questions? Yes, Madam.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, it talks in here about revised lists coming out in machine-readable form. What we have found is that we send them out in those big round tapes and then the party has to put them onto disks for us. Is there any proposal to put them in something that's more accessible by candidates' offices?
Mr. Girard: Actually, we provide the candidates with both diskettes and paper copies during the election. After an election, when we have a request, the act provides that we ask for money for the diskettes, while the parties have all the lists for the country on a CD-ROM. So most of the members of the House told us, well, I'd get to the parties and they prepare diskettes for me. That's why it's the way it is.
Mrs. Parrish: I've found with the CD-ROM that nobody would break it down for you. They don't want to adulterate their own computers or chance a virus going in, so you have to work through your party. You can't work through those big ones.
Mr. Girard: We were not aware of that, but it's something we can work on.
Mrs. Parrish: IBM, for example, wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. They were afraid there may be some virus in them or something that was going to mess up their big machines.
Mr. Kingsley: That's why diskettes are available to the candidates. I guess candidates prefer to save the money rather than pay the very low sum.
Mrs. Parrish: I didn't even realize that. I'm being really dumb. I'll pay it next time.
Mr. Kingsley: And you get the diskette.
Mrs. Parrish: That's perfect. Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions from members on this issue? I think in the circumstances we've completed the agenda. Do either of the two who passed on questions of the Chief Electoral Officer wish to ask your questions?
I want to thank all members for their attendance. I want to thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for taking the time to appear, as is common in this committee, and your assistants who are here with you. We're delighted you could be here today.
.1240
The meeting on Tuesday will deal with the review of various standing orders, continuing the business we began last Tuesday. I'm looking forward to suggestions coming forward from hon. members for improvement.
I declare the meeting adjourned.