[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 30, 1996
.1106 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
This morning I'm pleased to welcome to our committee the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
Good morning, Mr. Kingsley. You're accompanied by whom?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Ms Judy Charles, director of strategic planning as well as of the electors project permanent list, and Mr. Jacques Girard, director of legal services at Elections Canada.
The Chairman: Colleagues, as you know, this morning we're going to be entertained byMr. Kingsley on his favourite project, the registry of electors project. I look forward to some opening remarks and some interventions.
Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've been champing at the bit for this opportunity, so we welcome it. We will present a brief overview of the register of electors project, as well as an even briefer chronology of the events that have brought us to this point.
Our goal today is twofold: to update those members of the committee who were in attendance for our presentation last December when we outlined the direction we were pursuing on a register of electors, and to brief the new members of the committee about this important initiative that we believe would modernize and streamline the electoral process while offering a number of significant benefits to Canadians.
We wish to assure the committee that the momentum is in fact building for the concept of a register of electors. Over the past 18 months we have consulted with federal officials in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Statistics Canada, and Revenue Canada, with electoral colleagues and legislators in the provinces and the territories, and with potential public-sector data suppliers at the federal and provincial levels. We have been encouraged by the degree of interest and the spirit of cooperation that we have experienced in these meetings. The will to work in partnership to eliminate duplication and to deliver more efficient and cost-effective services to Canadians is very strong. Now more than ever we are convinced that the time is right and ripe for the introduction of a register of electors.
Allow me now to present an overview of the register of electors project since we began working in earnest to develop it.
Briefly stated, we organized ourselves internally and established a dedicated project team in January 1995, while in April 1995 we advised the committee of our broad intentions and the committee indicated its concurrence with our proposed direction. Subsequently we completed the research and feasibility phase of the project, which focused on building the register outside the electoral period, and presented our findings to this committee in December 1995.
At that time we defined a register of electors as follows: an automated file of eligible electors that is updated from existing sources used to produce the preliminary list of electors and shared, or shareable, among jurisdictions - effectively, a permanent list of electors, automated, kept up to date between elections for federal use, and shareable with provinces and municipalities.
I will now speak in French.
.1110
[Translation]
The feasibility study demonstrated that, based on our experience in computerizing the list of voters for the federal referendum in 1992 and then reusing that list for the 35th general election in 1993, we now have the expertise and the technology to build a register of electors, as I have just defined it.
The committee acknowledged the benefits of moving to a register system and enthusiastically supports the approach proposed for his implementation.
At that time, we agreed to return in March with a report in the form of draft legislation required to implement a register of voters.
Since the committee's agenda did not afford us the opportunity to appear in March as planned - today was the first opportunity - we distributed the feasibility report and the draft legislation to committee members on March 28 last. Each member of the committee should have received both documents as well as a summary of the proposed legislation.
We indicated in December that to implement a register of voters, with a 36 day calender, in time for a possible fall 1997 election, it would be necessary for the legislation to be adopted before the summer 1996. That's what we told you.
In view of Parliament's very imposing legislative agenda, we understand that it may prove unlikely for legislation to be passed by that time.
Therefore, we have begun to consider an alternative scenario for building the register of voters that we believe to be viable. Under our alternative scenario, we would build the register through door-to-door enumeration during the next general election.
This scenario, which obviously precludes the possibility of reducing the electoral calender to 36 days at the next general election, would require less legislative change, and by the fall rather than the summer of 1996.
With the committee's indulgence, Judy Charles will now present the two scenarios I have mentioned.
The first is the one that we presented in December and for which you asked us to draft legislation. It is more ambitious and would allow for a reduced election calender and a cost savings of approximately 40 million dollars. These savings would occur at each general election.
The second scenario, on the other hand, would maintain the current minimum 47 day election calender and result in a $30 million, as opposed to a $40 million, cost savings. Decreasing the period a minimum of 11 days results in savings of $10 million.
What we require following today's presentation is a clear indication from the committee regarding the approach that it favours. As we will explain, under either scenario, the time frames for the implementation of a register are very ambitious in terms of both your agenda and ours.
So, without further ado, I would ask Ms Charles to take over.
[English]
Ms Judy Charles (Director, Strategic Planning, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I'm going to be giving you a brief presentation this morning; it shouldn't take more than ten or fifteen minutes. You have before you the paper copy of the slides I'll be referring to, and hopefully you'll have an opportunity to ask any questions you may have once I've completed.
The Chairman: Could I ask you to keep it under ten minutes, please?
Ms Charles: Sure.
The Chairman: Thank you. Otherwise there will be no time for asking questions. You've already used up seven minutes, so actually under ten minutes would be preferable, because a number of people have asked to ask questions.
Ms Charles: Okay.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
[Slide Presentation]
Ms Charles: My presentation today is going to address three areas, as shown on the first slide.
First, particularly for the benefit of the new members of the committee, I'll present an overview of the findings of the research and feasibility phase of the register of electors project. I'll move through that very quickly, given the time constraints. This basically relates to the first scenarioMr. Kingsley was alluding to in his opening remarks, that is, building a register outside of the electoral period.
Second, I'll summarize the alternative scenario we've begun to consider, which would see us build the register during the next federal general election.
.1115
Third, I'll describe the next steps, specifically, the legislative changes required to build, maintain and use a register of electors under either scenario.
Slide three shows some of the benefits that would be offered by a register of electors once it's in place. I think most of the members are familiar with those and the fact that it would eliminate door-to-door enumeration and result in significant cost reductions. It would also make preliminary lists of electors available to candidates and parties five days after the issue of the writs, as opposed to the current 25 days, and there would be the possibility of it being shared with other Canadian electoral jurisdictions.
The main findings of the research and feasibility phase of the project, as detailed in the report that we sent to you on March 28, are shown on slide four. The most important one is that a register is feasible, cost-effective and should be pursued. Information can be updated using existing computerized data sources. At the same time, there are means available to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of electors.
There is widespread support for a register from potential data suppliers, provincial and territorial chief electoral officers and from the public. In fact, just after the recent by-elections we conducted a survey of Canadians, which we normally do following by-elections. We asked them about their interest in a permanent register. Of the respondents, 90% indicated that they felt a permanent register should be put in place. That number climbed to 93% when they were told that there was a potential of $30 million to $40 million in savings.
Legislative change would be necessary to build, maintain and use the register, and it could be built or implemented as early as fall 1997.
Slide five shows you the main components of the business case for a register under scenario one - in other words, registration outside the electoral calendar.
The first election using a register would cost approximately the same as when we would use the present system. In other words, we'd break even at the next event under the first scenario. For each subsequent event, we anticipate a cost savings of approximately $40 million, resulting primarily from the reduced elections calendar - Mr. Kingsley alluded to this with the 36 days versus 47 days - streamlined revision, and of course, using the register of electors.
These benefits would accrue to the federal level only. Obviously, if provinces and municipalities participated, the cost savings would be even greater. The business case shows other benefits, including improved efficiency in elector registration and increased accuracy and reliability of elector data.
Slide six simply outlines the three phases of the register: build, maintain and use. Regardless of whether we build it outside or during the next electoral period, the ``maintain'' and the ``use'' phases remain virtually the same under either scenario.
Allow me now to describe for you some of the differences between the two scenarios with respect to the build phase. Slide seven shows the main aspects of building the register outside the electoral period. As detailed in the research and feasibility report, that would take place in 1997 from April to June. Under that scenario. we'd work in partnership with several provinces to build the register, which would result in cost savings of approximately $13.9 million. The partnership aspect would see that kind of a saving.
The enumeration would consist of a mail-out, mail-back process. A form would be mailed out to every household, and electors would be requested to complete the form and mail it back to Elections Canada.
When we decided on a mail-out, mail-back approach, we consulted with the finance ministry in Ontario, which has had significant experience through the last three municipal elections in Ontario, when they used this process, and with Statistics Canada, which did some extensive studying of the process in determining their pilot for a mail-out, mail-back census this month.
Based on that experience we expect a 75% return rate for the initial response without any follow-up. We would expect that rate to increase to 90% after the follow-up. The remaining elector data and changes would be captured through an enhanced revision process, which I'll describe for you later.
Slide eight describes the main characteristics of the second scenario, which is building the register during the next general election. That would require less legislative change than the first one, and that change would be necessary by October rather than by June 1996, which the first scenario dictates.
The minimum election period would remain at 47 days, although consideration could be given to reducing the calendar and subsequent events if the committee so desired.
Traditional door-to-door enumeration would be used with additional information, such as date of birth and telephone numbers being collected for purposes of maintaining the register.
.1120
Some of the significant differences regarding scenario two appear on slide nine. First of all, the procedures for conducting door-to-door enumeration are well established, and the process is familiar to the Canadian public. However, since there would be reduced opportunities to work in partnership with the provinces during the build phase, any resulting reduction in cost savings would have to be made up at subsequent events. In other words, we would not expect to break even at the next event, unlike the first scenario, where we did anticipate that, as the research and feasibility report indicated. So cost savings with the 47-day calendar, building during the next event, would go from $40 million to $30 million.
Slide 10 shows that after the first event the scenarios remain virtually the same for the maintain and use phases, except for the length of the calendar; that is, that enumeration be eliminated for future federal elections and referendums. The information in the register would be kept up to date using existing reliable public data sources from federal and provincial levels. The register would be shared with provinces and municipalities for their electoral events. For subsequent federal events, the register would be used as the basis for the preliminary list of electors.
Slide 11 is familiar, I think, to most members of the committee, but for the benefit of the new members I think it's important to highlight briefly the data sources that offer the best means of maintaining the register between events. We did a number of extensive studies over the course of the summer and pilot projects with test data.
For electors who move - that's 16%, or 3.2 million electors annually - a combination of data from Revenue Canada that is provided annually, and from provincial drivers licence files, updated throughout the year, is considered to be the best source. For Canadians who die, the provincial registrars of vital statistics record the 1%, or 195,000 electors annually. For Canadians who reach their 18th birthday - 2% or 380,000 Canadians every year - provincial drivers licence data, supplemented by Revenue Canada data, is deemed to be the best. For new citizens, the only source is Citizenship and Immigration, which collects the names of the 200,000 new citizens annually.
So that combination of federal and provincial sources would produce a reliability or currency level of approximately 80% at the low point over five years, and that's assuming there is a sort of seesaw effect as the data comes in. This number would increase through revision during the event, and it matches our experience in 1992 at the federal referendum when we conducted enumeration and then reused that list for the 1993 general election.
So the bottom line is no single source can meet all of our requirements, but a combination of existing data sources shows we can achieve a reliability level of 80%.
Under either scenario, we propose a streamlined revision process. It offers many benefits during the use phase, some of which are that it would be easier for electors to transfer registration from one list to another and to correct personal information by telephone once their identity has been verified. Registration centres would be established in public places to increase convenience, and the new process would reduce costs by almost $11 million once the register is in place. Even with the traditional door-to-door enumeration, there would still be a cost avoidance of approximately$5 million with streamlined revision.
I should mention also that streamlined revision would see us targeting high-mobility areas such as chronic-care institutions, new subdivisions and university campuses through a combination of mail and personal visits.
As Mr. Kingsley mentioned, we've discussed the register with electoral agencies in all provinces, and in Alberta and New Brunswick we met with members of provincial government. The chart on slide 13 outlines those provinces where the greatest interest has been shown, in many cases where legislation has been drafted to allow information for the register to be collected and shared.
In British Columbia, where a provincial register already exists, the chief electoral officer has agreed to make data available at no cost to Elections Canada, as our base for the register.
In Alberta there are amendments to the Canada Elections Act, which are expected in this session.
Saskatchewan has draft legislation to collect and share information prepared and is ready to go forward with it.
In Ontario we met with the premier's office last week, and they manifested strong interest in building, using, and maintaining the register, as well as in other applications we could have in common.
In New Brunswick, a recent white paper tabled in the legislative assembly recommends the introduction of a register in cooperation with Elections Canada.
In Prince Edward Island, legislation to collect and share data is currently in second reading.
In Newfoundland, changes would be required to the legislation. But it's simply a question of timing. Interest in that province is very high.
In other words, no electoral agency has shut the door in terms of future cooperation. Moreover, all provinces and territories have agreed to provide drivers licence and vital statistics data.
.1125
Allow me to turn briefly to the proposed legislative changes that would be required to implement a register.
The legislative changes to bring about the first scenario are elimination of enumeration within the election calendar and provisions to allow us to build the register outside the electoral period; reduction of the calendar to a minimum of 36 days from the current 47; authority to the chief electoral officer to use lists of electors provided by the provinces and territories; collection of additional information - as I mentioned earlier, date of birth and phone number - from electors; and implementation of a streamlined revision process. Those changes would be required by the end of June 1996.
The legislative changes to bring about the second scenario, building during the next event, are somewhat less extensive: collection of additional information from electors and implementation of streamlined revision.
To maintain it under both scenarios, we would need authority for the chief electoral officer to enter into partnerships and to update the registry using existing public data sources from federal and provincial levels. To use it under both scenarios, we would require amendments to allow the lists of electors to be made available to parties and candidates 5 days after the issue of the writs instead of the current 25 days.
I hope I didn't speak too quickly or take too long. I'm done.
The Chairman: You're done in 11 minutes. That's great.
Mr. Langlois, I guess you'll begin our questioning today.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Kingsley, concerning the time period, I agree in principle to the permanent register of voters using the means you have suggested and I'm a bit surprised that we'd be going from 47 to 36 days. I find the gain minimal as compared to the means used. Is it because you consider that 36 days are the minimum political parties need for an efficient election campaign? In other countries, say the United Kingdom, three weeks are enough to hold an election.
Why that period? For example, could it be brought back down to four weeks?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Langlois, the answer is up to you. The most important variable is the nomination date which is the time granted the political parties to get organized and proceed with nominations in the different ridings.
If nomination day were to remain day 28 before the elections, the parties and candidates would only have eight days to organize. In the scenario we drew up, we suggested day 21 for nominations, which means from 36 to 21, which would give the parties at least two weeks to organize and for candidates to come forward. Then, they'd only have 21 days to campaign with the designated candidates.
If you want to shorten it even more, it's up to you. As far as we're concerned, we drew up a scenario we believe to be viable, but it's up to the committee to decide if it wants to shorten the calender even further.
Would the parties be happy? Would Parliament be happy if all parties had to designate their candidates, at most, six, seven or eight days after a government steps down? In our opinion, that's the real question.
Mr. Langlois: Administratively speaking, we could live with a shorter period. As for the opposition you've encountered and that is generally encountered, in other words the right to privacy and confidentiality and the fear that some confidential information might be used to other ends, could you say a few words about those perceptions, whether they're real or imagined?
What kind of obstacles did you meet when you tried to get your message across? Last year, we heard something about that in Quebec when the matter of a bill resembling this one and concerning a health insurance registry was raised. People were saying: ``They're going to have access to the register and they may even also have access to people's medical files.''
Recently, we learned that with their health insurance number, the Régie could find out the specific reason a given person received a treatment. At any rate, that's what is said.
What guarantees would there be for ordinary citizens that confidentiality would not be breached given the modern computer systems used today?
Mr. Kingsley: We were very aware of that at the very outset, as we said during our different appearances. We made sure that the people from the Privacy Commissioner's Office were aware of all we were doing at each stage of the process and how we were doing it.
.1130
The preferred data banks are the ones which, statistically speaking, are most valid, in other words those of Revenue Canada, provincial driver's licences and the vital statistics and Canadian citizenship register for new Canadians. We eliminated any and all reference to Canada's health system. Statistically, it was not the most viable thing and the report we sent you indicates this quite clearly.
Secondly, as single identifier, we used the person's name, which is usually well enough known, the address, which is regularly published in the phone book, as well as the date of birth. We kept away from the social insurance number and we did not want to propose a personal identification number for election purposes. We use those things which, generally speaking, people don't mind being used.
Thirdly, the data we would need are not the same as what could be found elsewhere. In Revenue Canada's case, the only data we would need would be the name, the address and date of birth of those people who have moved or reached 18 years of age the preceding year.That is all we would need. We don't need to see the rest of the data. We could build up the basic data bank ourselves during the next enumeration or, under scenario one, do it through the mail. So the data bank would already be there. We would only need those data.
The same thing goes for the driver's licence. We'd only need the notice of change of address. The people in charge told us there would be no problem. There is only one territory and one province, with a lower population if I remember correctly, where they'd have to change the law to allow it. So there's what we have done.
Of course, we'll never be able to completely convince 100% of the population that there's no danger. That's why the present Elections Act and the proposed changes would be such that the data gathered could only be used for election purposes. If they were eventually to be shared with a province or territory, the federal law would provide that the same requirements apply to the provinces and municipalities with which we'd have agreements to share certain information.
Our proposal is respectful of Canadian citizen's privacy and would ensure that the register would only be used for election purposes. Thanks to computerization, we have found mechanisms that would allow us to control any abusive use of lists far more easily. We computerized the list for the first time during the 1992 referendum and used it for the 1993 elections and it was efficient. I hope that answers you question, sir.
Mr. Langlois: You've already explained that there were some political or administrative problems to be overcome. Could the new Quebec legislation be of any use to the federal government if Quebec were to accept to send you the information gathered under the new legislation.
Mr. Kingsley: The proposal before you does not provide that only the federal government would be drawing up lists until the end of time. That's not what you have before you.
.1135
We're proposing to create this register because initiative has to be shown to get things going but in Mrs. Charles presentation we also suggested that the data from British Columbia, where they'll be having elections pretty soon, could be used to draw up the first federal list which would help you save money. Once the process is under way, nothing would prevent the federal list from being used at the provincial or municipal levels or even having a provincial list used by federal or provincial levels. Nothing prevents that in what was presented to you.
When the model has sufficiently evolved, perhaps it might be found useful to develop mechanisms to manage the updating process to the satisfaction of the different jurisdictions so the lists could be used by all levels.
Nothing is excluded in the model put forward. That's why this proposal was well received by the provinces and territories. They immediately felt the federal government wouldn't have control over all that and that the initiative was to get things going at the federal level.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Laurin, the Bloc's time is up, but if your question is on the same point, I'm going to allow the question before I move on to the Reform. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): On the same subject, Mr. Kingsley, in the process you were suggesting would it be possible that a taxpayer's name not be put on the list if that were the his wish? If the information comes from Revenue or Transport, then the names would be put on the electors' list automatically. To get their names struck off the list, would people have to take steps to that effect?
Mr. Kingsley: In the proposed legislation you have been handed, there is provision for two different circumstances which would allow people to have their names stricken from the register. The person would only have to make it known to us, in writing of course, because otherwise it would be too easy to have someone else's name stricken from the list. Secondly, if a person wants his or her name in the federal register but does not want it given to a provincial authority, then it would be possible to request this. You have both those safeguards in the proposal.
Mr. Laurin: That means you have to actively pursue getting your name off the list. Names would be automatically put on the list if people didn't ask for them not be put on.
Mr. Kingsley: The names would not automatically be put on the list. You have to remember that in the first scenario, the elector would register in person by mail. The person would send us back the form. We don't have any names. We can't get them from anywhere. So people would fill out the form on a voluntary basis. In the second scenario, we'd go door-to-door during the next general election. So, once again, this would be something done voluntarily by people who want their names to be part of the register of voters. That would be very clear, then.
Mr. Laurin: You said you could come to an agreement with Revenue Canada, for example. If I don't fill out the questionnaire I get by mail, that's when I'm doing something voluntarily. If I refuse to do that, my name should not appear on the lists. But, according to your agreement with Revenue Canada or a provincial motor vehicle bureau, you could get my name and put it on your list. Would that be possible?
Mr. Kingsley: No, that would not be possible and I'll explain why. Let's say you're not registered for the elections or that you've told us you did not want to be registered but that you want to vote anyway. That is allowed.
.1140
When we get a notice of change of address for your name from Revenue Canada, if your name isn't already on the list, we're not going to put it on the list because we don't know if you're a Canadian citizen. That's not indicated on those lists and no one can be registered unless they're a Canadian citizen.
So our updating mechanisms don't provide for adding any names, even those of people who've reached 18 years of age. We'll write those who have reached 18 years of age and ask them: ``Do you want to be registered? Are you a Canadian citizen?'' The question must be put because we can't base our list on suppositions.
[English]
The Chairman: All right, we will take the last question.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: As the riding boundaries aren't the same federally as provincially, how can we harmonize? How can a federal list, in that context, be used to make up a provincial list? How, then, could we save money despite that?
Mr. Kingsley: The solution lies with computerized mapping. At Elections Canada, we've already announced that for July 1996. Within a few months, all of Canada will have its maps computerized. Each riding, each poll will be traceable on computer and each address will automatically tie in to a poll.
If we got the data from a province where the electoral boundaries aren't the same as the federal ones, we could convert the whole thing based on the address. We take people living at a given address and convert their data to the electoral list for that riding.
The answer lies in computerized mapping and we're already there, as far as we're concerned. Of course, the people in the provinces sharing that information with us will also have to be computerized, at least as far as their own list is concerned.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Merci. Mr. Speaker, you're next please.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kingsley and associates, my position would be first that I support the thrusts that are here and that we should go with the first scenario. Secondly, the reduction in the number of days is a good objective as well. I think this would be supportable.
I am sure you've thought of all the details raised here. As you say, they are the sorts of things we're going to have to work out as we go along. But the thrust to register the voters and cooperate with the other levels of government is certainly an excellent one.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s we had a chairman of a legislative committee in Alberta put forward this objective of registration. It amazes me that 30 years later we're finally getting to a point where maybe we can do it. But I guess that's the way it is.
I have two questions. First, is the legislation prepared? Our agenda in the House is not too heavy at the present time. I think we could fit this into a legislative agenda and we'd be prepared to cooperate with this.
Secondly, do you have the manpower and so on to carry out the first scenario and implement it if the legislation is through by June of 1996?
I guess I also had a third question. This would mean in the legislation you'd have a rider that this act would not come into effect until late fall or the end of 1997. If we happen to have an election in spring of 1997, for example, we'd go to the current piece of legislation. Would this be right?
Those would be my three questions.
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the draft legislation, you have it in your hands. It's complete for scenario one. On March 28 I transmitted this, along with the feasibility report, to every member. So it's done. Not only is it done, the people who assisted us in doing it very kindly did it through the Department of Justice. So - and I want to be clear about this - the legal phraseology utilized in both English and French in this draft legislation meets the federal tests in respect of how to draft a bill.
I want to be clear, though, that there are other sections in the Department of Justice not involved in reviewing it. It has not been reviewed for compliance with the charter or compliance with all other pieces of federal legislation. This was not the mandate. The Department of Justice agreed to cooperate with us in drafting it in terms that are acceptable for federal purposes. So that is done. It is complete. It's total. It's ready for your consideration at any time.
.1145
In terms of scenario two, if that is what becomes viable, we would require approximately one month to revamp this piece of draft legislation - and I'm not calling it a bill, but it's draft legislation - to meet scenario two, which is, in certain respects, substantially different from scenario one. The bill would be shorter, but it takes time to abbreviate. It takes approximately one month. We had a discussion about that yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: Have a rolling transition type of thing.
Mr. Kingsley: Right.
In terms of your question about manpower, that would easily become available to Elections Canada. That is not a problem. We know where to go for the resources. What you have before you is something that has been brought up to you with a lot of private sector involvement. We do not do everything ourselves. We involve people. We did adjoin ourselves with people from Revenue Canada and Statistics Canada, people who know how to do all this - but on our permanent staff - as well as others who cooperated.
Your third question was about what happens if we are moving toward scenario one, where as of June 1997, a list exists. If an election is called before then, I am going to propose to you that as we move on scenario one, we also have, in our back pocket, scenario two. That is to say, the necessary forms with the additional bits of information would be part of what we would pick up if there was a door-to-door so that we wouldn't miss the opportunity of the next election being the last with door-to-door. It could be under scenario one, that the last election was the last with enumeration at the federal level if we do the mail-out and mail-back scenario.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That's good work.
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Mr. Kingsley, first of all, I think your proposal has an awful lot of merit to it. I'm sure either one or two, whichever is the one we have time for, should be instituted.
A question comes to mind in terms of the slide on provincial participation. For instance, I notice that B.C. says yes to build, yes to maintain, but nothing is mentioned for use. Saskatchewan isn't involved in it. Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec are missing. The Territories are captive, I guess.
Is there some reason for the provincial slate not being complete, and are there objections to some portions of the criteria?
Mr. Kingsley: The philosophy we adopted in pursuing this was essentially to exercise initiative in moving the goalposts here in terms of a register. But we also did it cooperatively with our provincial colleagues, and in some cases with others in the provincial governments. We've indicated which ones - Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario, where we met people from the premier's office last week, as a matter of fact.
In Nova Scotia, it's not that people are not interested, it's that they don't feel they can pursue it at this time. But they did indicate to us that once it comes along, the legislature would have a decision to make. The same thing applies for the Northwest Territories where, for example, for all intents and purposes, for elections there I'm still the Chief Electoral Officer by statute. But they have their own law, and it would have to be amended to allow this to happen.
In other words, it's a bit of a wait-and-see attitude, which is reflective of the fact that the provinces sit at different places on this issue in terms of progress toward it at this time. My view is that eventually they will all jump on board and take advantage of this. In some instances, some of them will wish to have their own list. This is the indication that exists because of the law in Quebec. We know that's the case in British Columbia right now. They've had a permanent list, or continuous register, for some time.
So that's all this is meant to indicate to you. There is a clear indication of a willingness to participate in one aspect or another of the three possible aspects for each province. We've clearly indicated that no one has said they're absolutely opposed to the federal government or to the federal initiative being exercised by Elections Canada.
.1150
Mr. Frazer: Did I infer correctly from what you said that the major obstruction to shortening the timeframe for the electoral process is the ability of the political parties to position themselves for the election? Is that one of the constraints you saw?
I was wondering whether I could get you to add to this legislation you've put forward a four-year election timeframe, where the elections are pre-ordained and everybody knows when the next election is going to be. I think that would be super.
The Chairman: If you want that, you should just declare yourself the next state.
Mr. Frazer: On that particular point, Mr. Chairman, I would vigorously support the implementation of a four-year election timeframe. I think it would be super for everybody concerned.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate the spirit in which you are raising that question, but I would suggest to you that if the committee and the House are able to spend time looking at the register, it should be a stand-alone item, despite all the other desirable changes people want to bring along, because getting unanimity on the other changes to the Canada Elections Act that people think are desirable.... We've been around that mulberry bush before at this end of the table.
Just getting the committee and the House to agree on the thrust of the register will, in our view, constitute a significant achievement.
Mr. Frazer: As you know, I was being a bit facetious.
Mr. Kingsley: I know, and that's why I said I appreciated the spirit in which you were doing it.
You also raised another question about the main reason. To us, an important reason is that it may not be possible to enact the statute amending so significantly the Canada Elections Act. We understand and appreciate that some members may have genuine objections. I don't think there's anything in this country that everyone agrees with 100%, all the time. That's fair; that's a democracy. So it may not be possible to pass the law by the end of June.
We want to tell you, though, that if you cannot do that - if that cannot be done - then please forget about scenario one. We simply cannot deliver. We've been able to deliver many things, but this is just being rational on our part. And please, if you want scenario two, you have to move by October. We have to know these things.
It's a long lead time to make such a massive change, and in order to do it successfully, despite all the testing we've done, we still have to develop a software for this. We know it can be done, but it has to be tested.
The reason Elections Canada has been successful in implementing so many computerized changes is we test everything in as virtual a reality as possible. We actually use results from a previous by-election, for example, to create an actual situation. We don't just do it in terms of checking the software after the programmer is done and saying it's okay. We need that time so we can turn the next election around and make it successful, as Canadians have a right to expect.
Mr. Frazer: Your proposal to use, for instance, the information gathered in the upcoming B.C. election is just an excellent one.
Mr. Kingsley: It could well be, and this would be very helpful under scenario one.
Mr. Frazer: It's probably in the information you've given me, but could you refresh my memory or tell me, please, what you consider the minimum timeframe required for you to complete scenario one?
Mr. Kingsley: Under the law the Chief Electoral Officer has up to six months to implement the change, but once we get the nod from the committee about one direction or another, we intend to pursue that. We could start counting the six months, or the up to six months, as of that time, so by the time legislation is passed it will have eroded part of that six months accordingly.
We do know it takes a minimum of four months from the nod to turn things around in terms of the scenarios and consider them successfully implemented.
Mr. Frazer: So basically, if I understand you correctly, you're saying if it were to be passed as legislation by the end of this session, by the time the new electoral boundaries come into force on7 January next year, it's likely the election material will be available. Is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: If we get the nod about the direction at least six months before that date, the answer is yes.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish, please, and then Mr. Milliken.
.1155
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): This is not meant as a criticism, Mr. Chair, but I think it's really sad that we're about to save millions and millions of dollars and this is being slightly rushed, even though you sat through a long meeting where we discussed how many angels could dance on the head of a needle over the last couple of weeks. But I'm very interested in this and very keen.
I have a couple of questions and then a couple of comments. The first one is that we are currently undergoing a very expensive census process, as I understand it, with Statistics Canada. Is there any possibility that they could have asked the simple questions you require in that census and done double duty and had this all over with by now?
Mr. Kingsley: I discussed this with the chief statistician. There is not an unwillingness to cooperate, but it must be remembered that the questionnaire for Statistics Canada purposes was approved a long way back. Elections Canada work had not progressed sufficiently at that stage to make any kind of viable proposal to Statistics Canada.
We did determine that there was a willingness on the part of Statistics Canada to look at this for future applications, in their next census for example. It would very easily become an ideal opportunity to refresh a list. You have there an opportunity, as I was saying, to get absolutely everybody. It's as good a mechanism as what we do when we go door to door.
But the question that is missing, particularly from the present questionnaire, is whether or not persons are Canadian citizens. They only ask that on the long form, which is 20% of the population. Therefore, because 80% would have to be rechecked, it's just the same as if none had answered the question. To us it means completely starting over.
Moreover, we would have had to institute a means whereby we would computerize the names, the addresses and the date of birth, because right now Statistics Canada does not computer-enter that. They enter the variable information relating to the various questions they ask, socio-economic and various other questions.
At the present time their statute would have prevented this from happening. It must be realized that their statute is just as tight as the Canada Elections Act about the ability to utilize data that we both pick up. In terms of Elections Canada we would eventually be recommending to the committee that our data be shared with Statistics Canada.
So in effect, if the pilot project they're now carrying out in eastern Ontario proves to be successful as a mail-out as opposed to people going door to door, if they knew with an 80% accurate list of names with the addresses that they would get an acceptable rate of return, then our lists could eventually be utilized by them to do the mail-out as opposed to going door to door. But that is something that unfortunately can be looked at only in the future. It simply was not possible to make everything happen in time for this census.
Mrs. Parrish: It's another example of the left hand not cooperating with the right hand. I just find it appalling. I've been watching people in my riding go through census training. It's a very intricate, very expensive process and they do it every five years. I find it unbelievable that Statistics Canada hasn't willingly put those questions on there and shared it with you.
You said that maybe everyone doesn't agree with this. I can tell by the nods opposite that all three parties agree with saving money. That's one of the thrusts of this government since we were elected in 1993. Saving money seems to be important to all three parties, including the independents in the House.
The other thing that's very important to recognize is that as this country changes or the perception of society changes, door-to-door canvassing is becoming more and more dangerous and more and more difficult. There is a perceptible fear. People do not answer their doors after dark. They don't want their children answering their doors. Sometime in the very near future enumeration is going to be impossible.
I think, as the Reform Party has pointed out and I think the Bloc agrees, this legislation should be enacted by the end of June. If this committee can pass a resolution saying that it should be proceeded on with most haste, it covers several things we should be concerned about: one is the safety of our citizens, two is efficiency, three is a savings of money, and four is that cutting the election period short would be a blessing for all. The pollution on the media and the lawns and everything else caused by an election is disgusting.
.1200
It's time for Canada to come of age and run an efficient operation here. Other countries have been doing it for years.
So I would like to see this committee, through the chairman, ask the House leader if it's possible to get this legislation through in time for the first scenario. I don't want to talk about the second scenario. I think it's time we got going on this.
Saving all this money has to be a prime motivator, but also, as I said, I have 19-year-old and 21-year-old daughters. I tell them not to answer the door after 7 p.m., so the enumeration is going to become impossible.
If we keep saying that it's going to be more ideal if we wait for scenario two and we hesitate to get into this, then it will never get done.
I don't know, Mr. Chairman, how we can go about speeding this up, but I would like to put a resolution on the floor at some point.
An hon. member: We have questions.
The Chairman: Before we get into that, colleagues, I want to remind you that this isn't necessarily a forum for.... This is to hear questions and answers, and let's get on with those. A number of people would like to speak.
Mrs. Parrish, I might not disagree with everything you've said. I disagree with one thing, but anyway -
Mr. Speaker: I have a point of order. Mrs. Parrish has made a presentation -
The Chairman: Excuse me.
Mr. Speaker: As the chairman, you're editorializing on her comments.
The Chairman: I'm not editorializing on her comments. I'm trying to conduct a meeting,Mr. Speaker. I am the chairman of the meeting.
Do you have anything further on the point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Let's just carry on with what's going on.
The Chairman: I know how to conduct the meeting, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: There was a proposal of a -
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish, if you have any further questions of this panel, please put them. Otherwise, there are a number of your colleagues who wish to put those questions to the panel. Then as a committee we'll -
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I would, respectfully, like to hear all the questions and all the answers, and if at the end I can move my -
The Chairman: That's fine. That's perfectly appropriate.
Mr. Milliken, please.
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): I have some questions.
Mr. Kingsley, one of the concerns I expressed at the previous presentation you made to the committee was the problem of electors sitting on the list who were no longer electors. In the 1992 experience with the referendum list that was prepared and then used as the preliminary list in the 1993 election campaign, there were thousands of electors on the list in duplicate, but they were not removed. The revision successfully picked up persons who had moved to new places, but it did not delete the person at the old address. So the potential for double voting was significant.
In my riding it was very significant. There were thousands of voters on the list who were in duplicate because of the large shift in the student population, moving from one apartment to another, which is commonplace in my particular community. I'm sure that's true in other university communities in the country where students traditionally sign a one-year lease and frequently move and change room-mates in the course of the summer. As a result, there's an enormous amount of change in addresses in those particular areas. I think that problem was there. So these people are left on the list.
From the material you provided to us - it was covered in the slide presentation - we have mobility. So we pick up people who have moved from one place to another, if they had a driver's licence. In cases of citizens over 80 years of age, I suspect that the potential for missing there is significant. I'd like to hear some figures. I'll have more particular ones later.
Then you deal with citizenship, and that's adding to the list; age 18, and that's adding to the list; and deaths would be removable.
What about people who emigrate or people who change addresses? Is there going to be some provision in the work you're doing that will get people off the list, without being unfair to them, so they're not on it in two constituencies, for example, or twice in the same constituency in different polls?
Mr. Kingsley: I think the proposal that is before the committee addresses those matters, but I would like to explain it further.
In 1993 the law only allowed the Chief Electoral Officer to utilize the lists from the previous event, but did not authorize - as a matter of fact, it pre-empted - our ability to remove somebody from the list. When he or she advised us of an address change through the revisal process, we could not remove him or her from where they were.
.1205
Of course we were very conscious of this when it occurred and those names were flagged to electoral officials. What is really important is the proposal that is with you is different. It is different in the sense that if someone is picked up as having moved through one of the mechanisms we've defined - either through Revenue Canada or the drivers licence address changes - they're removed from the old address when they're added at a new address. This is what would exist under the statute, should you adopt what is proposed for you.
Moreover, as Ms Charles was alluding to, in certain high mobility areas, including student residences, high density areas of cities and residences for elderly Canadians, we would do what is called a targeted revision. That is to say, either through mail or personal visits, everyone who is in those residences is effectively eliminated from the list. The present occupants are added to the lists through those visits and through the mail systems that would be devised. It would be a combination of the two to ensure we covered them. So we would eliminate duplication there, as well.
The other problem occurred with respect to the deceased. Previously there was no other authority to remove them. But under the proposal before you, there would be this authorization and we would act on it. The information would be provided to us through the vital statistics registrars of the provinces, with whom I have met personally and with whom we can easily work out an arrangement. They've indicated their willingness to do this.
Mr. Milliken: Okay. Based on the mobility information here in terms of Revenue Canada being a source and provincial drivers being a source, what is your estimate of the accuracy of the information you'll get on the number of people who will be covered? What percentage of the people who move do you expect to catch through one of these two sources?
Mr. Kingsley: From Revenue Canada, we expect we will pick up matchable names. That is to say, we may be picking up 100 or 95. That's not what matters. What matters is how many can you match by name, address and date of birth, which is why we need the date of birth as a single identifier if it's possible. We would pick up 65% matchable from Revenue Canada and we would pick up 40% matchable from drivers' licences. Now you just can't add the two and say we're getting 105% of the population. This would be false. But the combination of the two gives us what you have on that graph, which is a minimum accuracy of at least 80% of the moves that are matchable.
In other words, we get the right person because we have the right name and the right date of birth. So the combination of the two gives us 80%. Revenue Canada gives us 65%, while drivers' licences give us 40%.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken, could you ask the last question, please.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Kingsley, what about for age on provincial drivers and Revenue Canada? What is your estimate for accuracy on that one? Do you have figures on how many people in the population, at age 18, take out a provincial driver's licence? Are those figures available? Do we have any idea how many people who are 18 years of age file a tax return?
Mr. Kingsley: Again, the important number there is what would be matchable. I think it is better to come to the bottom line. And there, in terms of those who turn 18 and who we can trace, we get 60% accuracy from drivers' licences. We get 40% accuracy from Revenue Canada.
Again, we cannot just add the two and say it's 100%. Here again, the combination of the two tells us we would get approximately 80% of people who turn 18 in Canada from a combination of those two sources, to whom we would write and then determine if they are Canadian citizens. The other 20%, as it would be for the move, would be through the enhanced revision process briefly described by Ms Charles a little bit earlier.
Mr. Milliken: On what basis do you come up with this 40% figure on drivers' licences? How do you calculate this percentage of accuracy?
.1210
Mr. Kingsley: That was done through the demographic studies commissioned by Elections Canada, which are reported on briefly in that feasibility study. If there is need for the committee, or for Mr. Milliken for that matter, to have more precise information about how all of this was determined, with detailed findings, I'll be more than happy to provide it to any member.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Boudria, please.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): We have a rather unusual and happy situation in Canada with our elections. I think the number of eligible voters we enumerate is...what, 99% or something like that?
Mr. Kingsley: Through an initial door-to-door we get approximately 92%.
Mr. Boudria: What about overall?
Mr. Kingsley: Through a revision we get an additional 3%.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, so it's 95%. We have 95% of all electors right now. Statistically that is probably one of the highest in the world. I'm very proud of that and I think Elections Canada is too.
Then out of that we get about 75% of people who vote, or thereabouts. Is that appropriate?
Mr. Kingsley: Approximately.
Mr. Boudria: When we compare to the United States, for instance, with 50% of the people registered and 50% of those who vote, I think we have a very proud record. It's not quite as good at the provincial level and not quite as good at the municipal level. In some provinces - mainly my own, Ontario - it's much lower at the provincial level, and it's lower yet at the municipal level.
So anything we do, I think, has to bear in mind the tremendous success rate we have in making citizens participate.
What I'm concerned with is the following: that anything we do could aim us in that direction. I for one am worried about that. But more particularly, I'm concerned about such things as the harmonization of electoral lists right now. Municipalities are the creatures of the provinces. They are not government entities per se under the Constitution; they are the creation of another level of government. In how many provinces is there even a harmonized municipal-provincial list right now? Do we know that?
Mr. Kingsley: I personally do not know that.
Mr. Boudria: Do you know of any?
Mr. Kingsley: Between provinces and -
Mr. Boudria: And their own municipalities within their own provinces.
Mr. Kingsley: I do not know.
Mr. Boudria: I've been wondering why that isn't started at the level where it should be virtually automatic. If a province creates municipalities by statute, which it does.... Granted, some areas of some provinces don't have municipal governments, but then of course there's no duplication there because there's only one level of government. But where they exist, that harmonization doesn't exist at the present time.
The second thing is that the criteria for voting at the municipal, provincial and federal levels at the present time are not the same. For instance, at the federal level one must be a citizen in order to vote and that's it generally. At the provincial level there's a residency requirement within that province. At the municipal level - at least in my province, because I've served at all three levels - there has been citizenship since 1975. Before that there wasn't - only British subject worked. Now it's citizenship. Plus if you happen to own land in an area, even if you don't live there, that gives you a right to vote. Plus if you happen to own land in two places in the same municipality you get two votes, but only for the ward councillors, provided there's a ward system, and only one for the general votes. How are we going to accommodate all that in the system?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Boudria, in your question you've highlighted why we need to move on the federal level. We need something federal in this matter, which is why we're moving in this direction.
.1215
In terms of municipalities, the present statute, the existing act, allows us to send a copy of a list to municipalities that ask for it. We did that after the 1993 election. How they accommodate the people who are ratepayers outside, who don't reside there, is entirely up to them, and quite frankly, the least of my concerns.
Mr. Boudria: But wait a minute -
Mr. Kingsley: It is the least my concerns how they utilize the lists for electoral purposes at the municipal level.
Mr. Boudria: But no, with respect, if the whole purpose of doing this is in part to alleviate duplication between various levels of government, and if the lists as we construct them are not constructed in a way to make them useful at a municipal or another level of government because the criteria for a voter is different, shouldn't it be one of our concerns?
Mr. Kingsley: I think we have to recognize that municipalities are creations of the provinces. Therefore what we're forecasting is a list that would be utilizable at the federal and provincial levels and shareable with the municipalities, and possibly shareable with school boards as well.
In terms of computerization, I think it is important to remember also that the proposal before you is really a proposal at the federal level to move and economize between $30 million to$40 million - at strictly the federal level.
I do wish to continue, if I may, with one further point. In terms of shareability with the provinces, if a federal list is six months old, it has picked up the residency requirement for the provinces because it is uniformly six months across the land.
In terms of other variables, I can tell you that with computers one can program them in and massage the data, which is what we're essentially doing by building on other existing computerized data banks ourselves.
One final point - I'm sorry for being so voluble -
Mr. Boudria: It's difficult for us, Mr. Chairman, because we try to get a few questions in. Each member is limited to about two or three minutes of questioning time in a whole day of sitting at committee. That's why we have to get just the answers we're seeking, otherwise we could never form an opinion on anything.
Are you saying then that you can design a system whereby you would - say in Ontario - know if a person has been there for six months and you could know if he is a property owner, so that when that list is transferred to another level of government it could be not just available to them but the information in it could actually be useful to them, which isn't the same concept?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer to that is yes, eventually. The other answer is it is not part of the main considerations that are being proposed today.
What we've done is identify a willingness on the part of the provincial authorities to work cooperatively with us. We've given you a chart as to where they sit on this matter. But if I were to appear before you and say that we at Elections Canada have solved the problem of a permanent list for all levels of government, I would be lying through my teeth.
Mr. Boudria: Going then from federal to provincial, from this chart, there are seven provinces that have expressed an interest to various degrees.
Mr. Kingsley: They've indicated various degrees of significant interest and willingness to cooperate. I add that as well.
Mr. Boudria: Within the seven provinces that have expressed an interest, are you able to construct a list that would have in it, for instance, the provincial residency so they can be used immediately by them, assuming we would go ahead with it?
Mr. Kingsley: I would ask Mr. Girard to talk about what is in the project that is before you in terms of draft legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Essentially, Mr. Boudria, about how the proposal in front of you is written up, we made provision for the necessary mechanisms taking into account the possibility of an agreement with a province. I'll give you a concrete example.
.1220
Some provinces give the vote to British subjects and some require that voters give their profession. Within the context of a future mail-in enumeration, if we've reached an agreement with a province, that information could be given to us, although it would not be useful to us, but, on the other hand, it could be sent back to the province after the exercise.
Mr. Boudria: With the bill we're suggesting, we could already build a list the province could use right away. On that list, for example, you'd have information as to length of residency, which could make a person eligible or ineligible. That list could take into account the fact that, in some provinces, they don't take British citizenship into account any more. I think Ontario changed that in 1975, if I remember correctly. That would take all that into account and would work for whatever provinces are interested.
Mr. Kingsley: It could work based on the legislative proposal we sent to you the 28th March last. Of course, it would be up to the committee to accept that aspect or not.
Mr. Boudria: Would your bill do what I described, yes or no?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: In which provinces? Which provinces would be interested in taking your list right away to make up their next election list?
Mr. Kingsley: The provinces that have already shown interest are Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta, most certainly, which is one of the most interested provinces and whose chief electoral officer has given us quite a lot of support and, possibly, Newfoundland. At first, the provinces would contribute to the savings of $13.9 million provided for within the context of a partnership for the mail out, in scenario one.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral, if you please.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): On the list of your many partners, I don't see Quebec. Could you tell me why? Is it because we have a permanent list that would be competing with yours? What's the situation?
Mr. Kingsley: I got a letter from Quebec's chief electoral officer in January, I think, saying that as soon as they had information to share with Elections Canada on progress in setting up a permanent list, they'd be happy to share it with us. I haven't heard any further on that. We tried to meet a few times before that at a date after our December meeting. Unfortunately, he could not respond to our request because he's very busy with his own project and has other concerns. However, I expect him to call us as soon as he's made enough progress with the health care list, I think, but he won't limit himself to that.
It's not as easy as one might think and that's why we've done a feasibility study. Using the health care register might pose problems. That's what we managed to establish in the course of our study and that's because of the information dependability factor across the country. As we all know, health falls under provincial jurisdiction and the registers are kept by the provinces. Some provinces are more efficient than others. The information might not be sufficient at the federal level, but it might be enough for Quebec. I don't have the result.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: A permanent register is quite interesting, but I imagine that during the course of your study, you've probably thought about the possibility of an elector's ID card. You're allowed not to answer me on that, but I heard Mr. Milliken say that some voters could be found in two places at once. You could have your name on the list and be entitled to vote but you could lose that right if someone else voted in your place.
Mr. Kingsley: We did think about a voter's identity card. At a previous period, we discussed this with the committee. It was very clearly established that this was not in our short term plans.
.1225
One of the reasons had to do with the cost. Moreover, its dependability has not yet been demonstrated. It's something that could be looked at later on. It's not part of the proposal you have in front of you right now.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, we have about five minutes left in this meeting. Mr. Laurin has a short question, and I have Mr. Dromisky on my list.
Mr. Dromisky, do you want to put your question now? Then if we have time we'll come back.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A number of my concerns have already been addressed.
I've done a study of 63 communities in northwestern Ontario and discovered we have no information pertaining to the total population that exists in some of those communities. No census has ever been taken. How do you hope to be successful in achieving something that nobody else has been able to achieve, which is to identify all the people in those communities and get them on the voting list?
In northwestern Ontario we have isolated communities. We have communities that are not in contact with the outside world because they have no means of contacting the outside world. I can see a lot of problems that you're going to be meeting, and I'm wondering how you will deal with all of these through the model you are proposing.
Mr. Kingsley: First of all, I'd like to know if that is a problem that manifested itself in the 1993 general election in your riding. If it is, I want to pursue that with the returning officer, to be honest with you.
If those people were not enumerated and you can tell us where they are, we will pursue that actively. We'll identify them and put them on our address register; right now we have an address register that's computerized and will serve as the basis for the mail-out under scenario one.
But if they are people we have picked up through the door-to-door enumeration, that would ensure they get the piece of mail under scenario one. It would also ensure that under scenario two they are visited again.
Mr. Dromisky: I understand that.
As to your relationship with the Department of Indian Affairs, I don't understand exactly how strong it is or what kind of relationship does exist there. Can you explain?
Mr. Kingsley: It's a very good relationship, but not in the sense that they can share any lists with us. They've made very clear that the lists they have are not shareable with us. That is why there has been, through door-to-door enumeration, an opportunity for these people to register. Sometimes they've turned it down. There are whole bands that have turned down this process.
One thing I do want to make clear is the establishment of a continuous register of electors will not solve that problem, which exists under the present system. We must mount special efforts, no matter what system we have, to reach out to those people and have them appreciate that they have the right to vote. We do mount campaigns in that respect, and we are mounting campaigns in that respect right now.
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.
I'm going to allow one last question from Monsieur Laurin - a very short one - and I also have just been given notice of a question from Mr. Harb.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: My question is on duplication of expenditure. Take Quebec, where universal suffrage is used for municipal, school, provincial and also federal elections where the criteria are different.
For school board elections, you even have to know the voter's religion to make up your electoral lists. If Quebec is now making up its own electoral list and register of voters, will the government continue with another enumeration although it means a duplication of expenditure? Would it be possible for the federal government to use the lists made up by Quebec to avoid that duplication?
Mr. Kingsley: I tried to answer indirectly, but I will be a bit more direct this time. The possibility of the two things happening, or either one or the other, is provided for in the proposed model. Eventually, the federal government could use a list made up under provincial guidelines. Or the reverse could also happen: a province could accept a list drawn up under federal guidelines. Nothing prevents that kind of cooperation.
.1230
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, thank you. Mr. Harb.
Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Kingsley, thank you very much for your excellent presentation. Mr. Boudria was mentioning the fact that we now have a 95% sort of response from the population. If we move with the notion that every Canadian citizen has a right to vote, why then do we need a voter list at all? Why don't we just say that with your Canadian citizenship you're automatically eligible to go and vote? You'll have your address on the back of it. You'll just go like we do now with any kind of card: you'll just pass it through, and automatically, you have voted. If you go to another place to vote, you can't, because it will be rejected.
You'll save even more money than $40 million per year if we work to adopt a concept such that you have to have your citizenship in your hand to vote. You can go and vote with it. You won't need lists.
Mr. Kingsley: Well, how would we handle the possibility for registration?
Mr. Harb: You don't need to register. Every four years you'll get a little code on it. You'll do it once every four years.
Mr. Kingsley: Well, the basic tenet then would be that everyone has a card and carries it.
Mr. Harb: Exactly. As it is now - this is the law - anybody at the voting station can challenge you about your citizenship. I have some voters who were challenged because they didn't have their proof of citizenship with them. That's the first, fundamental rule: you need proof of citizenship.
Mr. Kingsley: If I may, it is proof of identity on which you may be challenged -
Mr. Harb: That's right.
Mr. Kingsley: - but proof of identity is not the same as proof of citizenship.
Mr. Harb: Well, somebody can challenge you on that.
Mr. Kingsley: If they do challenge you, as was mentioned by the chief legal counsel, you take an oath to satisfy it. There is no requirement for Canadians to carry citizenship papers with them at any time.
Mr. Harb: For voting purposes, it may be the answer.
Mr. Kingsley: That may be something the committee wishes to consider as an alternative, but I've highlighted for you the main difficulties that would be immediately associated with that.
The Chairman: Okay. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your indulgence in the scheduling difficulties we were enduring as a result of some other matters that came to the committee's attention. I want to thank you for the stimulating and very interesting conversation and dialogue we've had this morning. No doubt you'll be hearing from us as we need further clarification as the committee considers this matter.
I would suggest that certain colleagues, particularly the members who are interested in this subject, may want to consult with their own caucuses and also their own political parties. It's not only a caucus issue, but a political party issue. Perhaps once you've had that opportunity you would want to get back to the chair. We will convene another meeting that would consider and deliberate on this matter so that we're able to come with a full response to the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff for their work.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate this opportunity. As I said in my introductory comments, the earlier we're provided with your direction, the better.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Okay, is there anything else?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I sent my colleagues and you a proposed motion on the creation of a sub-committee to examine the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act. I'd simply like to give notice that at our next meeting I will move a motion in all points similar to the one voted on last September 20. I know our time is limited today. So I'd ask you to put this on the agenda for our next meeting because the last of the 30 days provided for in clause 22 of the legislation is the 31st.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Colleagues, I want to advise you that the next meeting of this committee is this Thursday at11 a.m., when we'll be in fact dealing with the order of the day, which is the communiqué andMr. Jacob's appearance.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: It could be May 7, Tuesday next week, which would give the committee two weeks.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. That's better.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: So it's on the agenda of the 7th?
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, are we all agreed on that? Rather than Jacob, it'll be the following day, May 7? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.