[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 30, 1996
.1528 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are resuming consideration of the order of reference of Tuesday, October 22 in relation to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, in accordance with Standing Order 73.(1).
On your behalf, colleagues, I'm happy today to welcome the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and other members of his office, Mr. Kingsley, Ms Charles, and Mr. Girard, who accompaniedMr. Gray yesterday. I understand Mr. Kingsley has some preliminary remarks.
Mr. Kingsley and your staff, I welcome you and I invite you to present those remarks.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you and to you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.
As was mentioned by the chairman, I'm joined today by Ms Judy Charles and Mr. Jacques Girard, whom you've all met before, I'm sure. We appreciate this opportunity to appear today to discuss Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.
In view of the fact that we've briefed this committee previously on the register of electors project and that the modalities of the project have not changed significantly, we do not intend to make a detailed technical presentation. You've had that before. Instead we will focus on answering questions from the committee members.
We are providing you this afternoon with information kits to assist in your review of Bill C-63. You may have received similar kits through the mail. These kits consist of the same documents that were in the information kits made available to members of Parliament at the time of our caucus briefing on October 21. The following additional documents, which have been prepared specifically for the committee, are also included in the kits: a chart detailing the data elements to build a register of electors; a second chart, detailing who could receive the lists of electors and when; a calendar of the proposed enumeration outside an electoral event; and a calendar of the proposed minimum 36-day electoral period.
.1530
Bill C-63 is the culmination of several years of study and deliberation with this committee. Elections Canada began working in earnest on the development of a register of electors in January of 1995, at which time we established a dedicated project team. In April of that year we informed this committee of our intentions and received your concurrence.
Subsequently we completed the research and feasibility phase of the project, which demonstrated that it would be economical to build a register of electors at the federal level and that it could be updated using federal and provincial data sources.
We presented our findings to this committee in December of 1995. We met with you again in April of 1996 to apprise you of the research and feasibility report and to explore possible alternatives to allow for the creation of a register of electors. That feasibility report was tabled with you, as was a draft legislative proposal.
At that time we briefed the committee on two options for the building of a register of electors. These options were a mail-out, mail-back enumeration outside the electoral period; or alternatively, a door-to-door enumeration during the electoral period. Under the mail-out, mail-back option, we were proposing the development of partnership arrangements with a number of provinces for that purpose as well as the use of provincial lists of electors, where they were available and consistent with our requirements.
We indicated to the committee that should the mail-out, mail-back option be pursued, amendments to the legislation would be required by the end of June 1996, given the amount of planning and logistical work involved. We explained that if the building of the register of electors were to occur outside the electoral period it would be possible to shorten the electoral calendar to a minimum of 36 days - at the ensuing election, obviously. To illustrate this, we provided the committee with a proposed 36-day calendar, highlighting the main components of a campaign. You will notice it resembles very much the 36-day calendar we've included in your kits.
Committee members acknowledged the benefits of moving to a registered system and indicated their support for the project. The chairman requested that the members of the committee consult their caucuses and political parties. The chairman further indicated that the committee would convene another meeting to:
- ...consider and deliberate on this matter so that we're able to come with a full response of the
Chief Electoral Officer and his staff for their work.
[Translation]
The approach proposed in Bill C-63 has certain differences from the one presented in April, which I will highlight for you now. First, the bill would allow for the building of the register of electors to occur through a final door-to-door enumeration outside the electoral period, as opposed to the mail-out/mail-back approach originally put forward here: that was the famous scenario number 1.
As I mentioned earlier, implementing the mail-out/mail-back approach would have required the adoption of legislation by the end of June 1996. However, we feel that building the register of electors through a door-to-door enumeration outside an election requires less lead time. This is because such an enumeration would be conducted in the traditional manner, without the need for additional time-consuming systems development and testing, contracting procedures and related activities.
Second, Bill C-63 takes into consideration the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in his annual report for 1995-96. To address these concerns and to ensure electors' privacy, the bill provides for the following measures: the information contained in the register of electors would be used solely for electoral purposes; the register of electors would be shared only with bodies responsible under provincial law for establishing lists of electors, including municipalities and school boards; it would be an offence to misuse the information and the register of electors; electors would be requested to provide active and informed consent for their data to be transferred to Elections Canada from federal sources; and electors could opt out of the register without affecting their right to vote or could direct that their information not be shared with other electoral jurisdictions.
.1535
Moreover, under the proposal presented in April, electors would have been requested to provide their telephone numbers for purposes of maintaining the register. This provision is not included in Bill C-63.
Third, the proposed 36-day electoral calendar that we provided to you in April would have allowed a period of 21 days for advertising by political parties. Bill C-63, however, does not amend the broadcasting period, which remains at 28 days. I understand that Mr. Gray, in his appearance yesterday, requested the views of committee members on possible amendments to the provisions of the bill dealing with broadcasting.
These are the major changes introduced since this committee last called upon me to do discuss the register of electors project. The approaches proposed in the bill for maintaining and using the register of electors remain the same. In essence, Bill C-63, save for the differences I have highlighted for you today, is as we have described previously.
We have apprised our provincial and territorial colleagues of the progress of the register of electors project at every major step through meetings and annual conferences. We have also established close working relationships and have met on a regular basis with representatives as well as the members of the Vital Statistics Council for Canada and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
As the committee engages in the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-63, we will remain at your disposal to provide additional information and clarification as required.
On another topic, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide the committee members with an update on Chapter number 26 of the Statutes of Canada, 1996, which was previously known as Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses).
The bill received Royal Assent on October 22, 1996. In order for the amendment to take effect before the expiration of six months following Royal Assent, section 331 of the Canada Elections Act provides that the Chief Electoral Officer publish a notice in the Canada Gazette that the necessary preparations have been made for the bringing into operation of the amendment. Such notice will be published in the Canada Gazette of November 2, 1996, which means that this Act will come into force fully as of next Saturday.
We would now welcome questions from you, Mr. Chairman, and from committee members regarding Bill C-63.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois now has the floor.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Kingsley, I think that before we discuss the substance of Bill C-63 and of the various clauses and guiding principles it contains, it is necessary to exorcise certain demons before we proceed with the baptism. That is my opinion in any case.
Last October 3rd in the afternoon I received two phone calls from two different journalists one from CBC and the other from Ms Geneviève Rossier of Radio-Canada, informing me that a bill concerning the reform of the Electoral Act was going to be tabled. I told her at the time that I knew nothing about it and she told me that there were rumours on the Hill in this regard and that the Chief Electoral Officer was reputed to have spoken about it. But I knew nothing about it.
.1540
Ms Rossier asked to meet with me on October 3. I met her at the end of the afternoon without knowing what would happen afterwards, without knowing anything about the content of Bill C-63.
To get a full understanding of the context in which I heard this news, we will go back toOctober 3. Ms Rossier had prepared a montage and we will listen to it together. It lasts about two and a half minutes.
To facilitate my colleagues' task, I had the interview transcribed and the translation appended to it in a tumble format, so as not to use too much paper and to please my colleague from Saanich - Gulf Islands. This is not, however, an official translation.
When everyone has their copy we can listen to the interview. This will allow Mr. Kingsley to give us some idea of the situation which prevailed on October 3, 1996 and explain what happened. Everyone has the document. We will now listen to the video presentation.
[Audiovisual presentation]
Mr. Langlois: My comments were made before Bill C-63 was introduced. The bill proposes that an enumeration be carried out outside the electoral period.
My question is not really about the comment that I made at that time. Last spring, as has been the case for several months and even for several years, all electoral questions have been dealt with before this committee.
Last April 30th, we had a full and complete meeting with your office where we focussed particularly on the building of a permanent register of electors and even devised some scenarios.
I thought as a member of the committee that the follow-up would take place before this committee in a non-partisan way to allow Elections Canada to have input from each of the parties represented on the committee and in the House.
.1545
But, contrary to my expectations, we did not hear about the next step at a committee meeting but through reporters' rumours, and through news bulletins where certain things were announced in a more or less clear fashion, for that matter. I'll have more to say about that later.
It seems to me, Mr. Kingsley, that there has been a break in the normal course of events. Work was begun on electoral reform with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which has almost always dealt with these things, in a non-partisan way, and all of a sudden we have a government bill being produced!
I thus ask myself the following question: did the work of the committee at some point along the way not satisfy the government, or even yourself? How is it that a matter which was in our hands and which we were quietly working on with your office is suddenly out of our hands, without our knowing why?
Why did the dossier go elsewhere, without any consultation of opposition parties - I will speak for the Bloc Québécois and the members of the Reform may speak for themselves - without any consultation on the Electoral Act, whereas the matter had already been referred to the Committee on Procedure and House affairs pursuant to Standing Order 103 or 106, if I'm not mistaken?
Did you, as Ms Rossier claims, bring pressure to bear on the government to try to get it to act? Or did the government pressure you because it was not satisfied with the committee's work? If not one or the other, what would the correct answer be?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Langlois, thank you for having given me the opportunity of seeing and hearing that report. It was the first time I saw it and acquainted myself with the text.
I don't know Ms Rossier and have never met her, in any case certainly not for that montage. If I did meet her, it would certainly have been in another context which I do not recall.
You talked about a montage she had put together. I am satisfied with that expression. The small bit where I make comments, aside from where I am seen going down the stairs, is very clear. It is very clear from the words I have to say that I am talking about the work I have done before the committee. The reporters are trying to get me to talk about rumours and I tell them that I will not comment rumours.
Then I talked to a CBC reporter who interviewed me in English, and afterwards in French. The report was seen on the CBC, and what I had seen on RDI news at 9 o'clock was not what was broadcast at 10. I had not seen that.
What I am shown saying there is accurate. I did comment the fact that I had proposed a minimum 36-day electoral calendar as being feasible. That is what I commented, and I did not add anything to that.
As for the work of my office, when the committee calls, I appear before the committee. If the committee does not call me, I do not appear.
I said earlier in my comments that I expected to hear from you. It was very clear that you were to consult with various caucuses and I was waiting to hear back from you. In the meantime, it is normal that you take all the time that you need to deliberate and take into consideration anything that seems to merit your attention; you were to consult on the scenarios that had been presented or on any other scenario, at your convenience.
As I mentioned, and I believe Mr. Gray also explained this yesterday, Mr. Gray has the right to communicate with me at any time about any electoral matter.
The Chief Electoral Officer, under the Canada Elections Act, communicates with Cabinet through a designated minister and Mr. Gray is that minister. Mr. Gray and I have had talks to see whether other scenarios might be possible.
What is before you deals with an enumeration outside the electoral period and with the introduction of a minimum 36-day electoral calendar; we are of course in agreement with that at Elections Canada because we know that that would be achievable.
That is what I tried to say in my presentation. That is how events unfolded.
.1550
Mr. Langlois: When Ms Rossier states that the Chief Electoral Officer was called to the Cabinet antechamber, this was not a formal call to appear, but for a meeting which was routine in the context of your duties with the minister responsible for this matter, is that the case?
Mr. Kingsley: What I explained very clearly to reporters is that I was not invited to attend a Cabinet meeting. I indicated that very clearly and I repeat it before the committee.
I had a meeting scheduled with Mr. Gray and I met him. It was in the vicinity of the Cabinet meeting.
Mr. Langlois: I did not question Mr. Gray. Yesterday, he said that he took part of the blame on himself for not having consulted opposition parties as tradition requires in electoral matters. I am all the more disappointed because this committee has in the past, in my opinion, operated so smoothly on electoral and referendum matters and had good relations with Elections Canada.
I understand that you must manage your affairs and that you are not necessarily accountable for all of your actions before this committee.
I do want to say that I am satisfied with your answers. I would add that I now understand how events unfolded, and your explanations. As the document indicates quite clearly, it is Ms Rossier who said that you had convinced Cabinet, whereas one cannot in any way infer from your televised comments that you were the one who convinced Cabinet. I think it was Thomas Moore who said: ``Give me one word and I will hang a man.'' But the death sentence has been abolished, have no fear.
I would like to talk about the merits of Bill C-63. I would like to go back, Mr. Kingsley, to the statements you made last April 30th. I don't believe I have to quote them in extenso because you must remember them. You said among other things that the bill had to be passed before the June adjournment so that you could establish a permanent register and you were even talking about a permanent register for elections in the fall of 1997.
I understand now that we are not at all talking about a permanent register in view of the next election. We are talking about something else altogether, and you can correct me if I am mistaken. The only thing we are talking about is moving the date of the enumeration forward for the purpose of having a permanent register one day. I thought that with a permanent register we could follow the voter if he moved elsewhere in Canada and also follow him in terms of his or her age; I even thought we could follow him throughout his existence and then delete him from the lists.
With Bill C-63 even if an enumeration takes place in the spring I don't think things will be ready for the next election campaign. We will be going from a 47 to 36-day period simply because the enumeration will have taken place previously.
I am sure that the beneficial effects of a permanent voters' list will only be felt during a subsequent election.
Mr. Kingsley: What you say is generally correct, but I think it is important that the members of the standing committee understand that our objective is to hold one last federal door-to-door enumeration outside of the election period. That enumeration will be used to draw up preliminary lists for the next election, but we will also have the possibility, since the law requires it, of saying that the electors' register is coming into effect in order to allow us to update the register where possible in light of the systems we will be developing and which will be fully operational as of the fall of 1997. We do know that we will be able to develop the systems as we go along.
I will give you an example. If the bill is passed and an enumeration is held in the spring, we will be able to declare legally at the end of the enumeration that the register exists. The act or the bill as it stands now also states that what will be on the register when the next election is called, when the writs are dropped, will become the country's preliminary list.
.1555
Obviously, if we receive data from the provinces concerning deaths, we will delete from electoral lists the names of persons having died between the last day of the enumeration, the day upon which we would declare that the register exists, and the day the writs are issued, so as to have as accurate a list as possible for the vote.
But I must also tell the committee that all of the systems have not been developed to the same point, in a way that would allow us to say that as regards driver's licences, for instance, the systems will come into effect at the same time from one end of the country to the other.
All of the systems must be operational to make possible the update of the four important variables we have already discussed with you, as of the fall of 1997. Among the four important variables we have discussed with you previously are the setting up of systems, the preparation of software programs, etc., to allow us to obtain data and update the register.
That is the explanation I wanted to give you about what is legal and what we expect with regard to our systems.
Mr. Langlois: I don't know if I understand this bill or not, but it seems to me that you're going to carry out this enumeration one way or another.
I want to take the situation in Quebec as an example since I am a member from Quebec. At the same time as this is happening, Quebec is preparing a permanent electoral list pursuant to Bill 40 which was passed by the National Assembly. I think that people have been working on it for approximately 18 months and it will be available in the coming weeks or months.
Would it be possible under the existing act to conclude agreements with the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer to take the list which has been prepared, at public expense no doubt, and transfer it to the federal level, or must you absolutely have your employees do a second door-to-door enumeration?
Mr. Kingsley: According to the bill which is before you today, it is obligatory that we carry out a door-to-door enumeration, from coast to coast.
Consequently, to gather the data for the register which will eventually and essentially become the preliminary list for the election which will follow, we must carry out a door-to-door enumeration throughout the country, a traditional enumeration.
As for the possibility of using provincial data from different sources, as we have already indicated to the committee, the registrars, driver's licences, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of one province or another, or the registrar of statistics, all of these will be called on when we update the register between electoral events.
Now I want to ask you whether I have expressed myself clearly and whether you have understood what I have just said.
Mr. Langlois: It is very clear as far as the form is concerned, but on the substance, the substance we are discussing, things are much less clear.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec has an electoral list drawn up, at taxpayers' expense, prepares an electoral list using the same criteria. His law may enable him to transmit that data to you, if you are authorized to receive it.
I think that there is a flaw in the bill if you cannot use the electoral lists drawn up in Quebec or in any other province, because this would avoid the necessity of this expensive enumeration. It seems that Alberta's electoral lists would be available.
An enumeration has just been done. I suppose other Quebec citizens, since we are talking about Quebec, will be going to the same houses and asking the same people for their names.
Why not simply copy Quebec's list, if it is willing to lend it to you, rather that doing another enumeration?
That was my question on the substance and it is my last one.
The Chairman: Very well, thank you.
Mr. Kingsley: May I answer?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr. Kingsley: First, Mr. Langlois, technically speaking, it is not at all certain that transposing the names from the provincial list could be done without entailing a great deal of work, because the voting areas are not identical at the federal level and at the Quebec provincial level.
.1600
They are the same for Alberta and Prince Edward Island because we worked together with those two provinces, which are now carrying out a door-to-door enumeration. Your comments are valid for those two provinces.
You mentioned in your remarks when the bill was introduced that the register in Quebec would come into effect at a date which had not yet been determined.
Tomorrow the committee will have the opportunity of hearing the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. You will certainly be able to ask him when his register will be ready.
But you must remember another thing. I know how important the quality of a list is for a vote, and all of the politicians I meet tell me this all the time. Indeed, having a list or a register with data obtained in the proper way through a door-to-door enumeration and updating the list by means of the usual systems as soon as possible, as the data come in, is one thing, and it is quite another to have a list that is already two or two and a half years old and having to make all of the necessary changes to it, going back that far.
So all of these things should be considered before saying that we can build a list in that way.
I want to say to the committee that the bill that is before you does allow the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to obtain data from all of the Chief Electoral Officers of provinces, insofar as they agree to share the data with him, in order to update his lists.
The bill also allows the Chief Electoral Officer to share data with his provincial counterparts, either to draw up a list, or to help them update the data in their database to the extent that they also have a register.
The fact that several provinces do not have a register must also be taken into account.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): I just want to add a comment before I ask some questions following from what Mr. Langlois has said.
I expressed to Mr. Gray yesterday our concern that the scenario in this particular bill is not the same as the scenarios that were discussed before the committee. This bill, as we're now beginning to understand it, envisages a 36-day electoral period in the spring of 1997. As I said yesterday, my reading of previous discussions before this committee - and I was not here - was that this was not possible before the fall of 1997, and then only if legislation had been adopted before the summer of 1996. This is a very big change and it gives us some concern.
In that regard, let me ask a couple of questions. First of all, can you tell us on precisely what date it would be possible for the government to proceed with the 36-day electoral period? Following from that, would it be possible to amend the legislation? Is there any technical barrier to amending the legislation to make explicit the date on which it would be possible to have a 36-day electoral period - or to put it another way, the date before which the government would not be allowed to have a shortened electoral period?
We are very concerned about this. I cannot understate this. We are already playing a guessing game here in the opposition about the timing of the next election, and we don't want to play a guessing game about the length of it as well.
.1605
Mr. Kingsley: Sir, in answer to your questions with respect to having a clause in the bill that would stipulate when certain things could happen, of course this is something that is possible from our perspective at Elections Canada. I will refer you to my introductory remarks where I did indicate...and I think I did that on purpose, to be honest with you, so people would understand how the legislation works at the present time.
A bill is passed by the House and the Senate and receives royal assent. When it amends the Elections Act, it comes into force automatically six months after, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has issued a notice in the Canada Gazette saying that he or she is ready to implement the legislation. This is what was done a little while back with respect to Mr. MacLellan's bill, which is now a law.
The same thing would prevail under this scheme unless there were a clause modifying that part of the statute. It's possible to have a clause modifying that statute in that respect. It's up to the committee to make its deliberations and to arrive at that conclusion.
I want to be very clear, as I attempted to be in my opening remarks, about the feasibility of this scenario versus what it was that we were discussing when we met earlier. When we met earlier I was presenting this committee with two scenarios. I don't think I said they were the only two scenarios possible, but I was presenting one scenario whereby - and it was called scenario 1 - we would change the way we would do the last enumeration in a very significant way.
We knew we were taking a risk in presenting this to you because it was a significant break. Instead of going door to door, we were going to do a mail-out, mail-back scheme, similar to what exists right now in Ontario with respect to municipal enrolment for elections. We also presented to you the fact that we were working with our provincial colleagues. This required an incredible amount of work with Canada Post, on our part, and it also required an incredible amount of work on their part with at least two major subcontractors.
To meet all the timeframes involved in devising such a new system from coast to coast and in order for us to do the kind of on-the-ground testing required - and we were going to be doing it in New Brunswick - we required to know from you, parliamentarians, in law by the end of June 1996 that this was indeed what we were flying with. That's why we told you at that time that this was it. But I've never asserted anywhere that this was the end of the possibility of a 36-day calendar.
Since we all wanted to offer you a fall-back, we also presented you with scenario 2. To those people who were interested in salvaging the idea of a register, we also said that if you want to salvage a register then we still need to amend the law, here's the proposal and we could do it at the next election, whenever it occurs, with normal enumeration. That would take 47 days.
The scenario that was left in the air was essentially the one that is before you now. The fact is that we are utilizing, in this proposal, the opportunity to utilize the same methods with which we are all familiar - you around this table and we as the administrators of the system - a final door-to-door enumeration. The one difference would be that it would be outside the electoral period. But the one advantage it does offer is that it allows us, the electoral workers and the 110,000 people we need to hire to do this, an opportunity to focus on only that, so that we wind up with a better quality product.
I think you all know that we have been dealing with computers at Elections Canada since before 1992. The scheme we presented to you allowed us to build on that experience of computerizing the lists in 1992 and utilizing those lists everywhere except in Quebec in 1993, so that there was no door-to-door in 1993, something that happened so naturally that we don't even think of it. But in 1993 in this country there was no door-to-door enumeration in Canada except in Quebec. So for three quarters of Canada it worked.
.1610
We learned a lot of things about revision and how to handle revision under a scheme where the list is a year old and we could do nothing about removing the names of the deceased, and so on.
I'm sorry for taking so long to answer your question, but I need to be clear with the committee.
Mr. Langlois also said that I don't have to account to this committee for my actions. I have to account to parliamentarians for the air I breathe, so it's not a problem for me to tell you exactly what I did and when.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Kingsley, I want to follow up on the first part of your answer.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that this bill were to receive, as is, royal assent on December 31. What is therefore, procedurally and legally, the earliest you could start the enumeration and the earliest the 36-day election could be called?
Mr. Kingsley: It would be three months after that date. So we're talking about the last week of March, beginning of April. It's that cut-off.
Mr. Harper: It can't be the same for both.
Mr. Kingsley: I must have misunderstood your question. I thought there was only one question, sir.
Mr. Harper: What is the earliest date for starting the enumeration outside the electoral period and the earliest date for calling a 36-day election, under this hybrid system we would be operating with?
Mr. Kingsley: You're right. I was answering only the first part of your question. The earliest we could do door-to-door enumeration, based on your question, would be starting on April 1 or 2. In accordance with the calendar that has been distributed to you, the earliest that a general election could then be called would be the end of the third week in April, after the date where it is said that a register exists that allows that register to become the preliminary list for that election.
Mr. Harper: I gather then that if the government proceeded in that manner, for the next election campaign, this list you're building outside the electoral period using the door-to-door enumeration would not be stored or managed using the technology you plan to use for the permanent voter register. Is that a correct assumption? Would it or wouldn't it?
Mr. Kingsley: There are parts that we could start to maintain practically the day after - sorry about ``maintain,'' but that's one of the phases; when the register exists and you're updating it, we call it the maintain phase. We could start to update the register with the information that's on it practically the day after, based on arrangements we could have made with provinces for the flow of information.
I was utilizing the example of persons who would have died. We could start to remove their names at that time. But I also stipulated that a fully operational system only comes into full swing in the fall of 1997; that is to say, in accordance with our work plan, we have agreements at that time with all the provinces concerning the two data sources we need from them at this stage, and we have tested our systems and developed our software and tested it by that time and it's operational.
Mr. Harper: I'm really starting to have serious doubts about whether we're proceeding in the right way here. Let me go further.
What would be the cost savings, exactly, of having done door-to-door enumeration outside of the electoral period and then having a 36-day campaign versus doing it in the traditional way, a 47-day campaign with enumeration during the campaign, for this upcoming election? What are the savings there? Are there any?
I assume the savings are in the creation of the register, not in proceeding in this particular manner.
Mr. Kingsley: The savings are in two events and for two reasons. The savings are owing to the register itself, its creation, and that amounts to approximately $22 million per electoral event. As well, $8 million of the savings are owed to a shorter electoral calendar.
Mr. Harper: Even when you do an enumeration anyway outside of the period? Really, aren't we now talking about, in effect, for this next election, a 66-day electoral period? We're talking about 30 days of enumeration and a 36-day election, so it's really a 66-day period for the next election.
.1615
Mr. Kingsley: That is one way of looking at it, sir, and I will not disagree with that. I think it is important to note that this is the scheme that was followed in Quebec to establish its list as a permanent list and to go into the referendum. This is a model that is similar to that in that respect.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): As a sub-question to that, for clarification, Mr. Chairman, then in terms of the 30-day period in which the enumeration is done, how do you save $23 million during that period of time?
Mr. Kingsley: For the first event, there are no savings.
Mr. Speaker: So it's not until the subsequent one, until after the year 2000.
Mr. Kingsley: That's right. This is why in the graph - and this is all information that was made available publicly; it's on the graphs you have there - the savings start to accrue at the end of the 37th and the beginning of the 38th general election. The next one is the 36th, so there has to be another one to recoup the investment costs involved here. Then we're talking about $30 million per event. That's where the data you've been provided indicates that over the next six events there are savings of $130 million - at the federal level only, I might add.
Mr. Harper: I'm going down a different track here than I was originally, but let me throw this at you. Instead of having what I would class as a 66-day electoral period this time, what would prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from having a 47-day period and doing the traditional enumeration but saving money by having legislation that allowed the Chief Electoral Officer to build the list in certain provinces - Quebec, Alberta, B.C. - based on the work that has already been done there on a permanent register? Why are we not looking at that possibility?
Mr. Kingsley: I'm sorry, sir, you've lost me. You mentioned several lists, and I know at this time the Quebec list does not exist.
Mr. Harper: The B.C. list, then, or the Alberta list.
Mr. Kingsley: May I ask you to repeat your question? I lost it.
Mr. Harper: I understand some provinces have their list. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe none of them are finished, but I know we have various provinces - B.C., Alberta, Quebec, P.E.I. - building lists.
Have any of them completed building their list, and could we use that data in the next election as opposed to doing an enumeration - the traditional enumeration?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer to your question is that could be a possibility. However, one would have to ensure that all the data elements that are required by the federal scheme to establish a register are picked up and exist on any provincial electoral list that we would even consider.
The Chairman: Can I ask a question of clarification?
So you're telling us it's the integrity or a standard that Elections Canada would want to establish, to follow on what Stephen is asking you, so you'd want to do your own separate check to make sure, if you will, that their list would be up to your standard.
Mr. Kingsley: Well, yes.
The Chairman: Is that what you're trying to say to the committee?
Sorry to jump in, Steve, but I....
Mr. Kingsley: The provinces ask people if they've been a resident of the province for six months. If the answer is no, they don't get on the list. That's an element we have to consider.
The Chairman: That's a good example.
Mr. Kingsley: We have to understand what impact that has on the validity of a list. Did they ask the date of birth? Do we have date of birth? This scheme foresees a high desirability of having the date of birth, and so on. These are the elements we would be looking at.
Mr. Harper: I can imagine that those are questions that would have to be looked into.
Was that scenario discussed between you and the government, or had you examined that scenario? If you haven't examined it or it hasn't been discussed with the government, why not? It seems to me there are potential savings involved in that particular approach.
Mr. Kingsley: What you're proposing is very similar to scenario 2, which we tabled with you when we last appeared. There could be variations in your questions, in terms of utilizing other lists, but that's a variation on the theme.
.1620
Mr. Harper: The reason it comes up is that scenario 2 was on the table only if we failed to get legislation through by the summer of 1996, which was the case.
As I say, I'm just asking these questions because it perplexes me that we haven't been approached with that model. That's all.
Mr. Kingsley: In point of fact I did table that scenario 2 with you and said this is a natural fall-back. I also said at the time, please keep in mind you have to amend the legislation even for that. So it's not as if no amendment was required. Amendments are required if you go with scenario 2.
The Chairman: I'll jump in there. That's exactly right. It wasn't exactly like that, but it was very close to that, Mr. Harper, in what was tabled before the committee on April 30. That's not news to us at this committee.
Mr. Harper: I'll just say I do think there are slight differences between what I'm saying and scenario 2, because we are talking about the possibility for the next election, as opposed to the subsequent one.
In any case, let me ask one other question. Why do we need gender on citizenship lists at the federal level?
Mr. Kingsley: Gender is there because it has been there for a long time. If you're going to ask me the next question, do we need gender, I will answer you, because I've asked the question of my people, by saying it is not necessary. It is not essential to have gender. It is helpful, useful, but it is not essential to put gender on the forms. By law it is required at this stage, I should say. But if you're asking me from a practical point of view whether we need it, the answer is it is not necessary for managerial purposes.
The Chairman: Ms Catterall.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Let me start with that. If it's not necessary, how is it helpful or useful?
Mr. Kingsley: It's moderately useful.
Ms Catterall: How?
Mr. Kingsley: How? In the sense that you can have Jean Kingsley and Jean Kingsley and in the past people have felt it useful to be able to tell the difference between the two. That's how it has been construed in the past. Of course I'm answering in the sense that also, should the register project proceed, we'll be asking for date of birth, even though it is not a requirement, and it's an identifier to us of much more value than gender.
Ms Catterall: That's obviously important in maintaining a permanent voters list, whereas I don't think gender is.
Mr. Kingsley: No.
Ms Catterall: You may remember from our previous meeting that I was concerned about whether there would be equal access, opportunity, and likelihood of all electors being on an updated list. Let me ask about certain categories. You do an enumeration. What's your process for ensuring everybody who turns 18 after that enumeration period is automatically added to the list on the same basis as if they had been 18 during the enumeration?
Mr. Kingsley: The data on new 18-year-olds would be provided to us through the driver's permit information we would derive from the provinces.
Ms Catterall: If they don't get a driver's permit, how do you know when they turn 18?
Mr. Kingsley: The other source that would be available would be Revenue Canada taxation data. Of course the next question is what if they don't pay taxes either? The point is that those people you miss through these systems you can only pick up through aggressive advertising campaigns, where under the register system we have streamlined the process. The number of days for revision increases by 4, from 24 to 28, and you target your marketing and your ads to let people know that if they turned 18 since the last election and they haven't received their card, it's time for them to register or to get on the list.
.1625
Ms Catterall: Let me talk further about equal basis. During an enumeration, if you come to my door and I'm not there, you can find out from my neighbours that there are three people in my house of voting age, and so on, and those names go on the list. You're proposing for the revision that through these various information sources you would send out a card and the onus is then on - it sounds a little bit like a version of negative option billing - the voter to take a positive measure to ensure he or she gets on the voters list. This makes them different from somebody else who is put on the list as a result of the enumeration.
In other words, if I happen not to be home when your enumerator comes to my home, I get on the list even if they can get my name from a neighbour. Six months later, I've moved into a new house. I get a card because you've somehow found I moved into this new house. I lose the card because I've just moved into a new house and I'm busy doing all kinds of other things. I can't read. It is not my language. I'm blind. For whatever reason, I don't get on the voters list, even though you know I'm there.
Mr. Kingsley: Even though I know you're there?
Ms Catterall: Yes. You've sent me a card, so you know I'm there.
Mr. Kingsley: Right. So this means you're on the list.
Ms Catterall: My reading of the legislation says you send me a card and I have to send it back to confirm I want to be on the voters list.
Mr. Kingsley: No.
Ms Catterall: Is it the reverse?
Mr. Kingsley: I'm sorry if I led you astray. This is not the system at all.
Ms Catterall: Okay.
Mr. Kingsley: The system is this. The card and the public ads would say you've been sent a card. If you haven't received a card, get in touch with the returning officer immediately. For those who have received it, we say if this is not you, or if there's anything wrong with the information, get in touch with us. If everything is okay, you just keep it and you're on the list. You put it on your refrigerator and on polling day you bring it to the polls, even though you don't have to.
Ms Catterall: Let me refer you to proposed subsection 71.016(1). As I read this, the Chief Electoral Officer, before listing a new elector, shall send the elector the Chief Electoral Officer's information relating to that elector and ask the elector if they wish to be listed.
You got me during the enumeration. You didn't ask me if I wanted to be listed, you just listed me. Then proposed subsection (2) says an elector who wishes to be listed must confirm.
Mr. Kingsley: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Girard could reply.
The Chairman: Sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): With your permission, I will answer in French. That provision of the bill will only apply once the register has been established. You can see that in clause (1), the bill alludes to new electors. Essentially, this provision will serve to confirm...
I will give you a more concrete example. We may receive information, let's say from the Motor Vehicle Bureau of Saskatchewan according to which Mr. x has turned 18. What the bill says is that before his name can be added to the register, we must confirm with the person himself that he has indeed turned 18 and is a Canadian citizen, because this is information that we cannot obtain from motor vehicle files.
So what we must do is send that person a form wherein we state that we have obtained this information and ask him to confirm his Canadian citizenship. That is all. There are no other actions to be taken. This applies essentially to new electors after the enumeration has taken place and the register has been set up.
[English]
Ms Catterall: My point is this still puts the person who becomes an eligible voter outside the enumeration period on a different footing from the person who was enumerated. If we're going to a new system, I want to, as far as possible, make sure all electors are on an equal footing.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: The difficulty that arises, of course, is that during an enumeration, the enumerators meet the person. Those who don't want their name to appear on the register will indicate that. One of the principles governing the register is that a person may refuse to have his or her name on it and before the person is registered he or she must thus be asked whether he accepts that his name be put on the register.
.1630
You are partly right when you say that there is a small difference. Yes, there is an additional burden which is not that cumbersome since all we will need to do is send out a stamped pre-addressed envelope. You have to sign a document to confirm that you agree to have your name put on the electors' register.
Ms Catterall: Which is not the situation of someone who is already on the list when the enumeration is done.
Mr. Girard: Yes. When the enumeration is done, if you don't want your name to appear on the register...
Ms Catterall: I'm going to leave this question aside for the moment.
[English]
The other thing I'm concerned about is the need to update the list. Again, this is an issue I raised, I believe, when we last discussed this. Some people in our society do not read. Some people are blind. Some people have another language. They are more likely, in my view, to be enumerated during a door-to-door enumeration than as a result of a publicity campaign. Many people do not receive newspapers. Many people, if they have a television, don't use it for this kind of information.
I'm concerned about what extra measures you are taking to make sure you include those people most likely to not be captured by, let me say, a middle-class approach to publicity.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr.Chairman, I would ask Ms Charles to answer, please.
Ms Judy Charles (Director, Strategic Planning, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you. There is always a possibility there will be some individuals in our society who are not aware of what we are attempting to make sure they're informed about.
However, we're sensitive to the fact that there are electors with special needs, and to the best of our ability we try to ensure all eligible electors are included.
We have programs that ensure material is available in Braille and in plain-talk language. Much of our publicity relates to advising people who know other people who don't read, can't read, or are not likely to see the advertisements to please make a special, proactive effort to contact those individuals.
We have strong links with various advocacy and support groups. They assist us in outreaching and ensuring people who are not likely to watch television, read newspapers, or hear what the average Canadian might hear will nonetheless have an opportunity to be contacted.
Beyond this, it is really difficult for us to ensure every single member of society is reached. Conversely, one could suggest there are people who don't answer their door during an enumeration because they too have special needs preventing them from doing that. We are still very sensitive to this and we continue to develop ways to ensure we reach out.
Ms Catterall: So we have a good model to work with.
This is the list done for the referendum and then subsequently used in the 1993 election. What analysis, if any, was done of the voters list for the 1993 election compared to the list used for 1992? How many people had dropped off? How many people had changed? Was this kind of analysis done so we know how successful the revision was in capturing at least as many voters on as equal a basis as the previous enumeration had?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I will look into this. With your permission, I'll come back to the committee with a reply as soon as possible. I will also flag that for the last election, it was the first election under Bill C-114, which allowed polling day registration. So we'll attempt to take this into account as well.
Ms Catterall: Will you come back to us before we deal with this legislation?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, I will. It's called moving heaven and earth to get an answer. This is what I'm going to do so you're satisfied that at least you have an answer.
Ms Catterall: Does this mean the analysis wasn't done? None of you sitting at the table knows whether it was done. Are you going to try to do it?
Mr. Kingsley: It means I do not know if it was done. From the body language of my colleagues, I would gather that we don't remember if it was done or not. In other words, you've asked a question we did not anticipate.
Ms Catterall: Oh, good.
The Chairman: That is what usually happens with Mrs. Catterall.
So you'll find out and advise our clerk, who will circulate the information to the members of our committee.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish and then Mr. Laurin, s'il vous plaît.
.1635
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I'll make a couple of comments and then I'm going to ask four questions all in row so I don't get lost in the answers. That happens to me sometimes.
First of all, I'm terribly enthusiastic about this. This is an absolute treat for me, particularly since I come from a riding of 250,000 people. I used the referendum list last time in preparation for the proper electoral period. It was the only way I could function pre-writ. What you're preparing is phenomenally good for me, so relax immediately. The questions will be easy.
I think it's also important to note, particularly for Reform members - who seem to be the cost-saving gurus and very concerned about patronage - that by supporting this, the Liberals, in one fell swoop, are getting rid of huge patronage jobs that are given out in every election period. I'm being facetious, but it's true. We've spent nine years in the wilderness, we now have our big opportunity for political patronage jobs, and we are giving up jobs for 110,000 good, loyal Liberals every election.
In answer to Mr. Harper's question, I don't presume to answer a question on behalf ofMr. Kingsley, but you kept asking him why we just don't do the normal 47-day preparation and fold it in.... We want a 36-day election period this time.
Every time we do this, I think we bore our electorate to death. I think we get a 72% turnout because they're sick and tired of us by the time it rolls around. They don't want to get out and vote because they're fed up.
Mr. Harper: That may be a problem just with the Liberals.
Mrs. Parrish: With respect to the pre-writ period, I noted that in your presentation you said this list will be used solely for electoral purposes. When we have those lists in our possession, would that pre-writ period I described that we used during the referendum be classified as proper electoral purposes for a sitting MP and for anyone else who wants to get hold of those lists? Can we use them in the pre-writ period before the election starts?
Second, with regard to the door-to-door lists, I absolutely know for a fact about American citizens being asked at the door if they're eligible to vote. They answer yes and get onto our electoral lists. I think the list you're developing will probably eliminate that, but I'd like your comment on it.
Mr. Kingsley: I'm sorry, but I didn't hear that.
Mrs. Parrish: Door-to-door enumeration is done in a hurry. People are working late at night. They're flying around door-to-door and asking your next-door neighbour how many people live next door and if they all look 18 years old and so forth. A lot of American citizens and people who were not citizens of Canada got on the list that way. They didn't understand the question at the door. They didn't understand the neighbours next door.... With the systems you're using, will we be able to eliminate the possibility...? In a close election where, when you have a recount, somebody wins by 13 votes, it's important.
The third question gets back to the concept of sex, of asking the question about whether the voter is male or female. When you go in to vote and a nice little lady sits there with a ruler and crosses your name off the list, she's making a visual identification, so that, for example, Carolyn Parrish doesn't come in and vote for David Parrish, which would give me great pleasure -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Parrish: Not in a federal election. We vote the same way.
A voice: Are you sure?
Mrs. Parrish: I'm pretty sure. Oh, God, what a question!
Does the idea help in the visual identification of the voter with respect to ethnic groups and with respect to what are sometimes considered unrecognizable male or female first names? In other words, would having male or female marked down help in any way?
Here's my last question. Will the current new batch of returning officers, who are being trained here in Ottawa as we speak...? I know mine's here bugging me to go out for dinner and he's not supposed to hobnob with politicians -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Parrish: Will they be doing this first list that you're talking about, the preparatory list? They'll be called on for double duty. Will they do this? Are they being trained well enough to be able to do this preparatory list?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Girard will answer, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: Your first question concerned the use of the lists. I'll try to be clear because this is complicated. You were talking about the period before the writs are dropped. Let's suppose the election has been called. Candidates of course have a right to a copy of the list when they file their nomination papers. In other words, before the election is called, no one has access to the lists. So, to answer your question, no, they cannot be used.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, if we had a quick election two years after our first election and we had a stable list developed, could we access that list in our computers and start campaigning?
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: The bill states that just as members now receive, on a yearly basis, the list of electors who are in international registers, they will receive the electoral list for their riding taken from the register and updated regularly on November 15 each year. The update will be annual. Each member will have the right to receive the list for his riding and each political party will have the right to receive lists for the ridings where they ran candidates during the previous election.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: So it would be equally accessible to all parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: Yes, with one caveat that you will also find in the bill, which is that this provision would not apply if the election were to take place after next November 15. As you know, the enumeration will be done in the new ridings and those new ridings are not presently represented in the House of Commons.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: I want to get back to the matter of gender. I do agree with you that mentioning the electors' gender on the electoral list may help to prevent fraud in some circumstances and not only, as Mr. Kingsley pointed out, in cases where the same first name can be either masculine or feminine. For instance, you have the name Claude in French which can be a man's name or a woman's name. Certain nationalities also have first names that we are not so familiar with, as you said. Yes, indicating the person's sex could certainly help to prevent fraud. Yes, that would certainly be one way.
As to the returning officers who are here for training, they have been introduced to the bill. However, to be perfectly frank with you they will not be able to apply this bill without some specific training to refresh their memory. The problem that cropped up when we began to talk about the register is that they became very enthusiastic and it was quite difficult to bring them back to current reality which is that we must do an enumeration each time, etc. So they have to be given a specific course. They are presently in Ottawa taking their training.
Even if the new electoral map is not in effect yet - let's say, hypothetically, that it will be in April, because it will only come into effect when a general election is called - the enumeration will be done using the new map so that it can be used easily. There is a provision in the bill to that effect.
Finally, the last question was about the door-to-door enumeration.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Non-citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: I think that you are aware of the difficulty we have with this provision because we have already discussed this. Not all Canadians have a document they can produce to prove that they are Canadian citizens. It seems that only a small percentage of Canadians have a passport and it is difficult for some to obtain that document. Experience shows that it is generally through political parties and the objection process the Act provides that a person's name can be withdrawn from an electoral list when it is ascertained that that person does not have Canadian citizenship.
I would add that the system that will be put in place will present a certain advantage. It will, for instance, require that an elector confirm certain information if he wants to have his name corrected or change ridings. He will have to make a declaration stating that he is a Canadian citizen, and that is something new. Likewise, any new elector, before being registered on the list, will have to confirm that he or she is a Canadian citizen. This is done verbally at the door at this time, by the enumerators. In future, we will at least have a signature from the person attesting that he is a Canadian citizen.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I have a closing remark. I've monitored elections in three countries and in each of those three countries some standard form of identification had to be shown for voting. I know in Canada it has always been kind of an honour system, the idea being we want to make it easy for people to vote. I think we're almost at that stage in our lives where we want the solemnity of the occasion to be important, and I would like to see in future some consideration given to showing identification when you go to vote.
I think it reinforces to people that what they're doing is very important, that it's an important responsibility, and it's not because I assume there's mass cheating going on out there. But I really think we've come to the stage in technology where there should be some form of identification demonstrated when you go to vote. That's just an aside.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Parrish.
.1645
Mr. Laurin and Mr. Bélanger, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Kingsley, in your draft householder article in which you describe the major changes to the electoral system, you mention that amendments to the legislation would affect voters in various ways.
First of all, you note that as far as taxpayers are concerned, a $30 million saving would be realized for each federal election. You have already explained this to us. However, considering the present date, I don't think that we can realize these savings in the next election. Whether enumeration occurs outside or during the electoral period, you will not be able to benefit from these savings this time around. Is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: There is no question that in order to move forward, we will have to spend more than the $30 million in savings that will be realized for each subsequent electoral event. That is clear. Therefore, your basic assertion is correct.
Mr. Laurin: Therefore, it would be in our best interest to hurry up and ensure that the electoral list is in effect before the next elections. Technically, however, this would seem impossible. Therefore, there are no savings to be realized this time around by doing the enumeration either outside or during the electoral period.
Mr. Kingsley: Your question contained a statement that I would like to clarify. I did not say that it was technically impossible. You asked me a question about costs and I gave you an answer concerning costs.
Mr. Laurin: Technically...
Mr. Kingsley: Technically, it is possible. Assuming the bill passes, say by the holidays, door-to-door enumeration can commence in April, as I indicated. Subsequently, when general elections are held, we will be able to go with a 36-day electoral calendar.
Mr. Laurin: Certainly, but you're implying a fall election then.
Mr. Kingsley: I'm not implying anything of the sort.
Mr. Laurin: There wouldn't be time to hold elections in the spring.
Mr. Kingsley: No, I believe I was very clear on this point. However, I want to be clear with you as well.
Mr. Laurin: Then what about the month of April?
Mr. Kingsley: It is possible, given the current schedule, for general elections to be held within a 36-day period as soon as the register has been compiled. The register is complete once door-to-door enumeration is completed. That's what is written here.
Mr. Laurin: I see. I will repeat my question, because I want to be sure that I understood correctly. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that it is technically possible for federal elections to be held in the spring, that the electoral period could last 36 days and that the new permanent register of electors could be used.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: That would be possible.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: However, elections could not be held before April or shortly thereafter.
Mr. Kingsley: Enumeration...
Mr. Laurin: Would begin in April.
Mr. Kingsley: ... would begin in early April.
Mr. Laurin: I see. Which brings us almost to the month of May.
Mr. Kingsley: This takes us three weeks into April. You have the calendar in front of you: the enumeration process would take 21 days.
Mr. Laurin: Therefore, we wouldn't use the register in the case of a spring election.
Some hon. members: Oh oh!
Mr. Laurin: My second question concerns the list that will be used. In several weeks' time, Quebec will have a permanent list of electors in place. I trust this isn't news to you, but in any case, we hope that it will be ready in a few weeks. Why not use this data which Quebec has collected to avoid...
Earlier on, you were wondering if the enumeration data collected by Quebec could technically be used by the federal government, since electoral district boundaries were not necessarily the same. When a permanent list is drawn up, computerization allows for changes to electoral boundaries, whether federal or provincial. The residents of different streets are enumerated. With computerization, it is not too difficult to take a street and place it in a provincial or federal electoral district.
.1650
I would like to know if you have looked into this matter. Have you met with provincial representatives to find out if technically, their lists would be valid?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. We have held extensive talks with Alberta. The enumeration currently being conducted in Alberta and the additional information being gathered for the purposes of establishing a register... In terms of sharing lists, the technical difficulty lies not with the electoral district, but rather with the polling division. We met with officials from Alberta and we agreed to set up identical polling divisions, which will make it extremely easy to transpose data from one base to another.
I'm not saying that it is impossible otherwise. What I am saying is that as things now stand, this would require a great deal of time and effort because we are unfamiliar with the system that Quebec is planning. We don't know all of the technical details. We have had extensive discussions with Prince Edward Island and the same thing is happening there insofar as enumeration is concerned. These two provinces have amended their provincial legislation to allow for the collection of data that could be useful to the federal government, either for establishing a list or for updating it. These were the two objectives in mind.
In Prince Edward Island, the polling divisions for the four federal electoral districts are the same as the provincial ones. I don't know how many divisions there are at the provincial level, but they are identical. Therefore, the transposition of data will be simple.
However, as I also tried to explain to everyone, establishing a list retroactively while taking into account changes that have occurred over a year and half ago is a far more complicated process because the number of moves progresses geometrically; the same person can move more than once.
It is extremely difficult to draw up a list retroactively. For example, we have to redo the list that we had in June 1995 because our systems were not yet fully developed. Before we can say that this list can be used for updating purposes, to say nothing of the problems in drawing up the lists, some technical aspects and the accuracy of the data would have to be thoroughly examined. This would not be a simple process.
Mr. Laurin: Are there any objections in principle to using these lists or are we dealing only with objections of a technical nature?
Mr. Kingsley: As far as the principle is concerned, I must be frank with you. The bill provides for the sharing of lists between federal and provincial governments. It allows for such sharing, not to draw up the actual lists as such, but for updating purposes.
Mr. Laurin: For updating purposes only.
Mr. Kingsley: When I presented the first option to you, I spoke of the possibility of partnership arrangements for the purposes of drawing up electoral lists.
Mr. Laurin: You didn't answer my question.
Mr. Kingsley: Aren't I answering your question?
Mr. Laurin: I asked if there were any objections in principle that had been raised?
Mr. Kingsley: And I answered no.
Mr. Laurin: You said that pursuant to the legislation, arrangements could be worked out for updating the lists. That wasn't my question.
Mr. Kingsley: I apologize. There are no objections in principle to this. I should have been clearer and answered no. I'm telling you now that there are no objections.
That's why the bill provides for the sharing of data.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bélanger and then Mr. Harper.
Before that, I just want to understand something. You envision the sharing of information. So far the Alberta project, as you've been informed, meets certain or most of your technical requirements, and you're not familiar enough with the Quebec project that's under way.
.1655
Maybe we can ask Mr. Côté that question tomorrow, about some of the deficiencies that Elections Canada now sees in the technical side. Is that about the way you see it?
Mr. Kingsley: There are no technical deficiencies that we see. We want to verify certain things.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Kingsley: We need to verify.
Just so it's clear with respect to Alberta, we have met and have shared information - the software was developed previously and the hardware is Elections Canada hardware that you can utilize now.
The Chairman: Okay. So there's reciprocity. That is what you're telling us.
Mr. Kingsley: There has been a meeting of the minds here, as with P.E.I.
The Chairman: That's important to know.
Mr. Bélanger, s'il vous plaît.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions on the technical side. The right to vote flows from and is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. I'm interested in knowing about this right not to be registered. The proposed legislation says to exercise a right you need not be registered, but I want to know to what point can someone not register. Is it the day of the vote itself? I'd like to know how technically that's going to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley, you indicated in your presentation that the bill takes into consideration the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner and that a person could request that personal information not be shared with other electoral jurisdictions. I would like to know how this will work. How far can a person go in insisting that this information remain exclusively in the hands of Elections Canada? Will this be reciprocal? For example, could an elector in the province of Quebec object to Elections Canada obtaining this information? Technically, how will this work?
Mr. Kingsley: The right not to be registered is an absolute right. When a new elector reaches the age of 18, he receives a letter asking him if he wants to be put on the list or not. If he does, he answers a series of questions about his date of birth, Canadian citizenship and so forth. The person then attests to the fact that he wishes to be registered by signing his name. If the person does not return the completed form, his name will not appear on the electoral list.
If a person whose name already appears on the list, either because he was enumerated or has been registered for the past 20 years, changes his mind for some reason, all he has to do is ask the Chief Electoral Officer to strike his name from the register.
The right to vote is also an absolute right. It is important for me to explain to you that the register is maintained between electoral periods. During an electoral period, it becomes the electoral list. When you read the bill, please remember to bear this in mind. We speak of an electoral list when an election has been called. The register becomes a preliminary list of electors once the writs have been issued.
A person can have his name put on the electoral list through the revision process, as described earlier by Mr. Girard, and at the same time he can ask that his name not be entered in the register. With the computerized systems that we have developed, a check mark will appear next to his name so that we can control the data and ensure that that particular person's name is not entered in the register.
Similarly, a person may be willing to have his name entered in the register, but may object to having the information shared with the province or someone else. The computerized database will then show that this is the person's wish. If an arrangement to share this information has been worked out with either the province or someone else, that person's name will automatically not be disclosed. The persons or agencies with whom arrangements have been worked out will be clearly advised that certain persons have requested that information concerning them not be disclosed and that their wishes be respected. This way, these persons or agencies will know that the list they have received may be incomplete.
.1700
Mr. Bélanger: In this case, have any projections been made as to the percentage of the electorate that will be registered at a given point in time? How close are you to having a complete electoral list?
Mr. Kingsley: According to the data that we have on British Columbia, 200 persons apparently exercised their right not to be entered in the register out of an electorate of 1.4 million. This gives you some idea of the scope of the problem.
Mr. Bélanger: That's what I want to know.
Mr. Kingsley: But I can't say if the situation will be exactly like that at the federal level.
Mr. Bélanger: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
We'll hear Mr. Harper and conclude, colleagues, with Ms Catterall.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I would like to know if you intend to recall the witness so that we can continue our examination of this bill. I'm thinking about one point which was raised by Mr. Gray but which we have not discussed today and which we won't have time to get around to. I'm talking about the issue of voting hours.
Since Mr. Kingsley and his team have developed a kind of expertise in this field, we won't have the opportunity to have them enlighten us if we must proceed. Perhaps we could invite them to come back.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm in your hands. I'm agreeable to staying beyond the time. I know Mr. Kingsley has already indicated that he's available.
So we'll stay; it's no problem.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: Let me get some clarification on those last comments. I spoke to Mr. Kingsley briefly about this before the meeting, but I'm assuming we will have a chance to have him come back to specifically address any amendments on the question of -
The Chairman: Yes, but that's different from what.... I understood from Mr. Langlois that he has a question to put to the witness as it relates to voting hours.
I want to remind colleagues that Mrs. Terrana is coming on Tuesday to specifically deal with the issue of voting hours. But if Mr. Langlois has some questions he wants to put to the witness, I have no problem as your chair to exercise the discretion to extend the meeting.
I understand Mr. Kingsley may very well want to return for some clarifications, particularly since, as everyone is aware, we may be considering amendments. Minister Gray was here yesterday and indicated there are some amendments. I'm certain we would like to have the benefit of the views of Elections Canada on those amendments as we work them through this committee. As your chair, that's what I'm prepared to say.
Is that satisfactory, Mr. Harper?
Mr. Harper: Yes, as I understand your answer.
I want to go back a bit. I'm unclear myself on this situation of Alberta and Prince Edward Island, and I raised it before. The question is this. With those provinces having done an enumeration, or doing them now or fairly recently, is there a possibility of using that to save money in the next federal election?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Harper: Okay, good.
I want to ask you some questions about the savings on these proposals. As I understand it - you can clarify this for me - there seemed to be the suggestion that there are two separate sources of savings. One is a saving from going from enumeration to a permanent register, and I assume additional savings because the electoral period is shorter, independent of the transition on the register. Could you just verify that this is the case and quantify those two sets of savings for me?
Mr. Kingsley: It's $22 million and $8 million respectively. The $22 million is for the establishment of the register and $8 million is for the abbreviated electoral calendar. They are independent of one another, but only to the extent that one must recognize that to have a shorter calendar, one must have a register and still have a viable scheme.
Mr. Harper: Could you quickly enumerate for me some of the large items in the $8 million cost saving, where that comes from? I don't need all the details. I just want to get the big picture.
.1705
Mr. Kingsley: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow Mr. Molnar, from my office, who has been working on this, to speak?
The Chairman: Please come to the table, Mr. Molnar.
Mr. Rennie Molnar (Manager, Headquarters System, Register of Electors, Elections Canada): Your interest was in the big picture.
Mr. Harper: The $8 million - the savings that are strictly due to the shortening of the period, independent of the registry.
Mr. Molnar: The savings break down into two primary areas. One is through returning officer staff and associated costs, because the period is shortening. The second big thing is office space and equipment. Those are the two primary components.
Mr. Harper: So it's safe to say these savings are generated at the constituency level, as opposed to in Ottawa.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Mr. Harper: The second question. I'd like to get you to respond to suggestions in the newspaper and elsewhere that in fact in B.C. and in other jurisdictions, I suppose Quebec, we are not seeing savings from the establishment of registers; that enumeration has proven to be less costly, contrary to our expectations.
Mr. Kingsley: I'll answer part of the question and then I'll ask Mr. Molnar to amplify on what I will say, because he is more knowledgeable.
My understanding is that in British Columbia, for example, recent changes have been made to the electoral law whereby they will be depending on information flowing from motor vehicle driver registration, as opposed to the system they had in the past, which involved local offices throughout the province. They are expecting savings from that, but I don't think they're in a position to tell us at this time what the answer is on that.
The other province was Quebec, sir?
Mr. Harper: Quebec. We're going to have a chance to ask the chief electoral officer of Quebec some questions, but I gather they're finding it difficult merely to establish the registry.
Mr. Kingsley: I agree with you. It will be fascinating and interesting for you to find out what is happening. I know in August we had one meeting at the officials level for us to start to understand their system. We know they've sent people over to Elections Canada on a number of occasions. We know we have provided them with all of our data on address registry, and other pieces of data. So I too await his testimony with impatience.
Mr. Harper: I won't pursue this line of questioning further, but I would ask if your office could provide me with some detail on how you see the $22 million savings on the register.
Mr. Kingsley: The $22 million?
Mr. Harper: I won't ask for it now. I'd like to see it on paper.
Mr. Kingsley: Would you like that to come through to the committee, sir?
The Chairman: I'd like that provided to every member, please.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): If he has the information now, why don't we hear it?
The Chairman: Perhaps you could just provide the information to us quickly, if you would like, as Mr. Rideout has suggested. If you want to highlight some of the major items, that would be helpful for us to consider, because we won't be seeing you for a few days.
Mr. Molnar: This is on the $22 million savings? The biggest chunk of that is from eliminating the enumeration. By eliminating the enumeration we save more than $60 million off the top.
The Chairman: But we're talking about $22 million.
Mr. Molnar: Right. We save $60 million through the enumeration, but then we have a couple of takes as well. One is we have to maintain the register in between events. That costs us about $16 million between electoral periods. Finally, the revision we use when we have a register is more expensive than a regular revision would be after enumeration.
So on one side we save roughly $68 million through the elimination of enumeration, but then it costs us $30 million more for revision and $16 million more to maintain it. If you do the math, that's where we get our $22 million.
.1710
The Chairman: You net out $22 million.
Mr. Molnar: Correct.
The Chairman: As I understand Mr. Harper's request, all committee members would appreciate receiving that material.
Is that fair, Mr. Harper? Okay.
Is that it?
Mr. Harper: I don't know how I'm doing for time. I would ask another question.
The Chairman: I've really thrown my watch out.
Mr. Harper: That's a dangerous tactic.
The Chairman: I've been quite generous.
Mr. Harper: Let me ask one.
The Chairman: Okay, one last question.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Girard responded earlier about the difficulty of tracking and authenticating citizenship because we don't carry citizenship documents in this country.
What databanks are open to the Chief Electoral Officer that may contain citizenship information? Has that been a consideration in constructing the sources from which you're going to gather your information?
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: I can tell you that based on the verifications that we have done, there is only one databank that could supply us with this type of information. The only accessible databank is that of Citizenship and Immigration which only contains information about new citizens. This information will be disclosed only if these persons consent to its disclosure to Elections Canada. As for Canadian-born citizens, for lack of a better expression, there is not a single databank that exists to confirm that you and I are Canadian citizens.
Mr. Harper: I have heard that there is a wealth of information in provincial health insurance registers. I wonder if this is in fact true.
Mr. Girard: We have looked into this and the information is not available everywhere. We will look into this further and get back to you with an answer.
Mr. Kingsley: I don't believe this is the case.
[English]
Mr. Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harper.
Ms Catterall, could I ask you to be brief?
Ms Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: Then I have a suggestion for all of you.
Ms Catterall: Could new citizens be added to the list automatically, since the right to vote is one of the prime benefits of becoming a citizen?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the comments made by the privacy commissioner, which have been incorporated into the bill, the citizenship people will provide to us, on a cyclical basis, the information concerning new citizens, but we will have to write to them and they will have to say they wish to be on the register. We require that in accordance with the scheme as it has evolved from what we presented to you previously to this day.
It's in terms of the privacy concerns that were expressed by the privacy commissioner.
Ms Catterall: Do we have anything from the privacy commissioner on that? Again, I'm concerned about the onus on the voter that exists after the first establishment of the roll but doesn't exist in the establishment of the roll. I'm particularly concerned about any discriminatory impact of that.
Mr. Kingsley: I know Mr. Phillips will be appearing before this committee, and that is a matter you may wish to pursue with him, because we're ready to go in either direction.
Ms Catterall: Thank you.
This is my second and last question. Another concern in the past has been about people in nursing homes, hospitals, group homes, or anywhere where people are in somewhat of a dependency state and have to depend on others to make sure they're properly registered. What provisions are there in the act, either as it exists or as amended, to make sure the director of a nursing home doesn't decide himself or herself who is and who is not capable of voting? Is there something that requires that every eligible voter be registered?
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: With respect to enumeration, I think that aside from the different information that enumerators will request, the procedure that will followed is similar to the one already in place.
.1715
There is a provision in the act which enables the returning officer to make some accommodations, but naturally, everyone must be on the list. You will agree with me that there are situations where it is desirable to secure the information without disturbing persons whose health may not enable them to answer questions. However, the returning officer must exercise his discretion and ensure that all persons who are eligible to vote are on the list.
[English]
Ms Catterall: I'm also concerned about that now, when you send out cards, as it may not get directly to the individual voter. Many individuals, a whole group of them, may have to rely on one person to respond on their behalf.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: A card will be sent out to each registered voter.
[English]
Ms Catterall: That won't in fact happen in a nursing home or a group home, for instance.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: Are you saying that because you think the elector will not receive the card?
[English]
Ms Catterall: No, not necessarily. Even if it was given to the voter, somebody would have to make the decision to return that card for that voter if they, for one reason or another, were incapable of returning it themselves.
What requirements are there on people in a position like that to ensure that they do in fact register the voter?
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: There is no need to return the card. It is sent to voters when elections are called. It is a notice of confirmation stating that the elector is registered on the list and is required to vote at a specific location.
[English]
Ms Catterall: Between the enumeration and the election, they were not in a revision period. Say you find that somebody has moved from their home to a nursing home, for instance. You send a card to the nursing home. They're now at a new address. The director of the nursing home decides that this person is too senile to vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Girard: Measures to address this specific situation were developed because - and the returning officers know this even better than we do since they are familiar with the electoral district - there are institutions or neighbourhoods where people are highly mobile. Those responsible for revising the lists could visit these establishments and ensure that the residents are clearly registered on the list. If they aren't, they could take steps to register them.
Ms Catterall: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you for your patience. I want to thank the folks from Elections Canada.
I've got a suggestion. Mr. Girard from Elections Canada, I understand, is available. Is it correct, Mr. Kingsley, that you and Mr. Girard, or any other combination of your officials, is available? I understand that Mr. Kingsley may not always be available, but certainly his officials are.
With your permission, colleagues, I will invite Elections Canada to come back on Tuesday with Mrs. Terrana. This might be a good opportunity to also continue on the subject of voting hours, as we might require additional information.
If that's agreeable with Elections Canada, that would be my suggestion. We could have at least Mr. Girard available to participate as a co-panellist. Is that okay? Is that a good idea?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The presence of Mr. Girard and Mr. Kingsley has been invaluable to us. They have a rather set opinion on the question of voting hours. I have met with several members who definitely prefer to have the ballot boxes sealed rather than the voting hours changed. I know that you have very serious reservations about this procedure. Perhaps you could enlighten us on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of this process.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to come back at your convenience and I will bring some competent people with me.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. Before I hear from Mr. Harper, I want to say that I see Mr. Kingsley acknowledging that he would then be prepared to come on Tuesday.
Mr. Harper, do you have a problem with that?
Mr. Harper: No, I don't. I just want to clarify, Mr. Chairman, what the expected hours of the meeting Tuesday would be.
Also, what about tomorrow? I gather we're starting at 9:15 a.m. What do you anticipate?
.1720
The Chairman: We anticipate that Mr. Phillips will take in the range of 35 to 45 minutes. That will then immediately be followed by Mr. Côté, who will be, I anticipate, in the same range.
Tomorrow, colleagues, I will be a little more vigilant about time. I know that everybody was very anxious to be given an opportunity to explore this with Mr. Kingsley. I know that I'm going to be criticized by my own colleagues because I let the opposition have an hour, while the government had only half an hour.
Mr. Harper: What are the hours of Tuesday's meeting?
The Chairman: Tuesday's meeting would begin at 11 a.m. I think we all recognize the importance of this, so if it's necessary to go beyond 12:30 p.m., I would advise you now, colleagues, that you should be prepared to stay beyond that time if the whip doesn't hit me over the head about that either.
So are we agreed then that tomorrow's meeting will be convened at 9:15 a.m. and will go to 11:30 a.m.? I will be quite vigilant on time. I'm warning you all now that we'll probably go in slots of five or ten minutes, or there will be a first round of ten minutes, then there will be five minutes beyond that.
We thank you and your colleagues very much, Mr. Kingsley. We appreciate it.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you. I'll see you on Tuesday.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.