HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, may we begin?

The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), is consideration of referendum regulation proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to the Referendum Act.

• 1105

That's what is on our agenda. However, on the notice that was circulated, it was indicated that if time permits, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, our main witness, has agreed that he would be glad to at least perhaps begin discussion on the redistribution of ridings, which follows each census, as you know. If we get to that, Mr. Kingsley is quite willing to make another presentation.

You have received the proposed referendum regulations, and you have received Jamie Robertson's briefing notes on this matter. You will notice that Jamie is here now.

I'm also going to introduce Mollie Dunsmuir.

Molly, we appreciate your time with us. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you again. You were a very pleasant change for us.

Colleagues, I want to thank Jamie Robertson for the notes we received. And you should also have received copies of correspondence to and from the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to householders during election campaigns. That's not particularly a topic for today, but you have received that package.

I would like to point out to you all again—and I apologize to our witnesses for this, but this is housekeeping material—that our meeting on Thursday is with the deputy clerk of the Privy Council Office, Mr. Richard Fadden. We discussed that, and he will be appearing with respect to the question of privilege.

Next week, if the committee agrees, it is my intention to continue with the question of privilege and hopefully to carry it through to some sort of conclusion before we return to the matter of votable private members' items.

If I could say one more thing, colleagues—this actually has nothing to do with our work as it stands, but it's very important for us to be aware of it—I have received a copy of a letter to the whips of each of the parties from Bill Graham, who is the chair of the liaison committee. As you know, the liaison committee is the committee of the chairs of committees. Our committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, sets up the committees, the committees elect their chairs, and those chairs become members of the liaison committee. The liaison committee is important to the work of all committees, because it clears up general matters between committees. For example, it is the liaison committee that clears committee travel plans.

In this letter from Bill Graham, chair of the liaison committee, to the whips of the parties, he asks each of the whips to prepare a list of associate members of the liaison committee. Our responsibility in this is to set up the committees. We also recommend associate members to the House of Commons. But as chair of this committee, and having been chair of another committee, I would say to you that the liaison committee badly needs associate members. The reason for this is that chairs of committees often cannot attend liaison committee meetings simply because they're chairing their own committee meetings.

I'm pleased to see the Bloc has already submitted a list of associate members, and I would urge the whips who are here or members of staff who are here to cooperate with the liaison committee by providing these associate members. I'd be most grateful if you would do that.

Colleagues, if I could now introduce our witnesses, we're very pleased to have with us Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who is the Chief Electoral Officer—and Jean-Pierre, we always welcome you at this committee. We also have Diane Davidson, who is the chief legal officer for Elections Canada, and Holly McManus, deputy chief legal officer.

We welcome all of you.

Jean-Pierre, we're in your hands. I think members have received notes of your presentation. As usual, we'll proceed with your presentation, and then with questions on it for as long as they last. If we have time, we'll then proceed to the matter of redistribution of riding boundaries.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Distinguished committee members, good day.

[English]

With respect to procedure, Mr. Chairman, it may be that when we exhaust the topic of the regulation, the comments that I would make have also been circulated on redistribution.

The Chair: We have not circulated them yet. We will when the times comes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Very good. Thank you.

• 1110

[Translation]

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, for giving me this opportunity to discuss the Canada Elections Act as Adapted for the Purposes of a Referendum, also known as the Referendum Regulation, and to answer any questions you might ask us.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ms. Diane Davidson and Ms. Holly McManus. I would like to mention that Ms. Diane Bruyère, who is the Assistant Director of Operations, and Mr. Carol Lesage, are with us as well to help us answer any questions you may have on the Referendum Regulation and the redistribution of electoral boundaries respectively, if necessary, of course.

The Referendum Act allows the Governor in Council to proclaim a referendum to consult the Canadian electorate on any matter relating to the Canadian Constitution. The Referendum Act states that the Chief Electoral Officer may, by regulation, adapt the Canada Elections Act to apply it in respect of a referendum. In accordance with the Referendum Act, I deposited a copy of the proposed regulation with the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Commons on October 5, 2001. The regulation was referred to this committee and to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for review.

I am here to answer your questions and to take note of any recommendations you might have. The objective of adapting the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of a referendum is to permit the referendum process to function within a framework that is, as much as possible, identical to that of an election, at the federal level, of course.

An adaptation is preferable to a complete rewriting of the Canada Elections Act because that act already covers some of the elements essential to holding an election, such as the electoral list and the voting procedure, elements that are equally indispensable for the conduct of a referendum.

Obviously, this adaptation must take into account certain specific characteristics of referendums. In a referendum, there are no candidates, no political parties as such and no third party election advertising. There are, however, one or more referendum questions. There are also referendum committees. These must register with the Chief Electoral Officer if they intend to spend more than $5,000 during the referendum period.

[English]

The first referendum regulation was made in 1992, following the adoption of the Referendum Act. It was under this legislation that the 1992 referendum was held. The Canada Elections Act was subsequently amended in 1993 by Bill C-114, which expanded the special voting rules allowing electors to vote from almost anywhere in Canada or around the world. The Canada Elections Act was also amended in 1996 by Bill C-63, which created a national register of electors, shortened the electoral period, and established staggered voting hours.

After the adoption of each of these bills, the affected portions of the Canada Elections Act and the referendum regulation were amended. In 1998 and 1999, minor amendments of a terminological nature were made to the Canada Elections Act, but they did not affect the application of the regulation. Thus, there were no further adaptations, since Bill C-2 was at the point of being adopted and was to introduce a completely new Canada Elections Act. This new Canada Elections Act, including the changes introduced by the adoption of Bill C-23, came into force on September 1, 2000. The general election of November 27, 2000, was conducted under this legislation. It monopolized all our efforts and delayed the process of making the referendum regulation until today.

Since then, Bill C-9 has also been adopted. The changes that it introduced to the Canada Elections Act are part of the proposed referendum regulation that you have in your hands. In effect, what you have in your hands is what will bring the statute called the Referendum Act entirely up to date.

Schedule 2 of the current Referendum Act lists the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that are not applicable in respect of a referendum. The Canada Elections Act, however, has been amended several times since 1992, when schedule 2 was adopted, as I've mentioned. Therefore, schedule 2 no longer correctly indicates a number of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that Parliament had intended to exclude from the referendum process. In order to give effect to the legislature's intention when adapting the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of a referendum, the references were considered ambulatory, such that they incorporate the amendments made to the Canada Elections Act. It was thus necessary primarily to establish a concordance between the provisions of the old and new versions of the Canada Elections Act.

This was also the approach used in the past. In 1996, we updated schedule 2, which dated from 1992. Parliament recognized this approach by adopting schedule 2 that same year. Consequently, we updated schedule 2 for the purposes of the consolidation that we must publish.

• 1115

In order to meet operational requirements, we, in rare instances, had to comply with the legislators' intent by doing more than a simple concordance. Subsection 227(3) of the Canada Elections Act, for example, pertains to the way in which a candidate's name is indicated on a special ballot. There are no candidates in a referendum, as I've mentioned, yet this provision is not included in schedule 2, which is under the Canada Elections Act. In the end, we had no choice but to make this provision non-applicable.

[Translation]

I hope that you find these few comments on this issue to be useful. My colleagues and I will now be happy to answer all your questions and hear any proposals that you may wish to make to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jean-Pierre.

[English]

I have Cheryl Gallant, then Joe Jordan.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question in regard to consideration of the referendum regulation has to do less with what is under consideration now—which I understand is more or less a housekeeping item in order for the Referendum Act to conform to the new changes to the Canada Elections Act—than it has to do with the consultation process when changes are being considered, particularly in the context of the relationship between the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.

During the Chief Electoral Officer's previous appearance, he responded to a number of questions raised by my colleague the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, regarding allegations of contraventions of the Canada Elections Act.

For the sake of discussion, let's say a contact is made by a member of the Prime Minister's staff, asking the commission to investigate an alleged violation. That request is purposely sent after the six-month time restriction in order to put the burden of the allegation on the shoulders of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and take it off those of the complainant. Do you believe the Commissioner of Canada Elections is warranted in proceeding on his own initiative, as is allowed under the existing legislation but nevertheless sets a dangerous precedent in that the most fundamental of freedoms are exercised in the democratic franchise?

I'm asking this question in today's context, because in the proposed changes to the regulations of the Referendum Act, there has to be an element of trust between elected officials and public servants. This must be reflected by the job you do. It must be demonstrated in the administration of the Canada Elections Act, and we as legislators must be prepared to act should this trust be violated.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, in order to save the committee time, could I take this under advisement and come back in writing if it's acceptable to the member? I'm not sure I can respond immediately without having consulted with the Commissioner of Canada Elections on this matter.

The Chair: Cheryl, he's your witness.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: That would be fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

The Chair: Did you want to pursue?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes, I would like the written answer.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I trust that would be shared with all members of the committee.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will provide it to the committee chair, and therefore to all members of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I will take it to Cheryl Gallant first, and then to the committee.

Cheryl, do you have any further questions?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Not at this time.

The Chair: You're comfortable with that.

It's not Joe Jordan up next, it's Geoff Regan, followed by Pierre Brien, Jay Hill, John Richardson, and Scott Reid.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Kingsley and staff members.

I'm a little confused about the process here. How long has this process of preparing these regulations been going on?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: For this particular set of recommendations, it has been going on for some months after we had finished wrapping up the election.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The 2000 election.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, the 2000 election, because the statute was passed on May 31. It came into law in the year 2000, but the rumours started to spread about the election coming. We therefore had to refocus our energies on the possibility of a fall election. That then became a reality, and with that reality we had to suspend the work being done on this adaptation.

• 1120

After the election, we were also advised that the government was contemplating amendments to the statute for the technical amendments that Bill C-9 carried. Therefore, we decided that we might as well continue our work while keeping in mind that C-9 would have an impact. That's why we're here before you now. This was the earliest that we could make it.

Mr. Geoff Regan: When did the work on the adaptation begin?

Ms. Diane Davidson (Chief Legal Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): It started shortly after Bill C-2 was passed by the House. We immediately started to look at the adaptation, because Bill C-2 was a major overhaul of the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Do you know what year that was?

Ms. Diane Davidson: As the CEO just said, it was in May 2000.

Mr. Geoff Regan: So it was about eighteen months ago, with an interruption.

My office received the regulations last Friday, and I note that your intention, Mr. Kingsley, is to make the regulations on November 1. It strikes me that after eighteen months, or whatever it has been since the project began in terms of work on these regulations, this committee has been asked to receive the regulations on Friday, discuss them today, and that's it. I note that you say in your letter of October 5:

I would appreciate receiving comments no later than October 26, 2001 as I intend to make the Regulation on November 1, 2001.

I wonder if you really feel that gives members of this committee adequate time to look over these regulations, review them, and consider them?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The November 1 date was a suggested intention date. There is flexibility for the committee to prolong its work on this matter. It's just that this is the procedure as it was established in the past. I would write to the committee, tell them what the intention was in terms of dates, and give the committee the time it required. In the past, the committee has—because we've been here several times, as I've mentioned in my notes—required several additional weeks, but that does not create a problem.

If the committee requires more time, Mr. Chairman, I'm more than happy to comply.

The Chair: I would note that I think Geoff's point has to do with the original letter. The committee recognized that there was a very short time. We did ask for a further extension, and I notice that you did say you would accommodate us.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, and that letter was phrased somewhat differently, and not exactly in accordance with previous letters. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed in that respect. And it was not—

The Chair: I hate to interrupt these things, Jean-Pierre—although I always do—but I do think it is very important, particularly when our committee is getting started again—and ignoring the very particular circumstances of this fall—that you be aware of the fact the committee has lots of things to do. It is not easy for a committee of this type, which includes all the whips and a number of other significant officers of the House of Commons, to move very quickly from one topic to another. I think Geoff's making a very important point.

Please continue.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to understand the process here, because that was my main concern. In fact, I was in my riding fulfilling important responsibilities on Friday and yesterday. I arrived last night, and the regulations were on my desk this morning, of course. There wasn't much opportunity for me to have much of a look at them, I must say. Therefore, I look forward to questions from other members on the substance of these materials.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Pierre Brien, Jay Hill, and John Richardson.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Kingsley, Ms. Davidson and Ms. McManus.

You refer to the 1992 referendum, which was held when the first Referendum Regulation was passed. In 1992, in Quebec, the referendum was governed by the Referendum Act of that province. So we didn't have any compatibility problems with the federal legislation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: On the contrary, we did have problems. I remember them quite well, because I was there.

• 1125

For example, there was all the advertising that appeared in the newspapers in border areas, such as New Brunswick and the National Capital region. The federal government gave one date for revision of the lists, while Quebec gave another date.

The rules having to do with the registration of third parties are completely different at the federal level. In Quebec, there are only two umbrella committees. The operations of these committees in the border areas were also a problem.

So there was an entire range of problems, which I believe I informed the committee of at the time.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Was there any litigation? Did people file complaints before the courts regarding the restrictions of the Quebec legislation at the time?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If there were any, they did not complain to me, because I was not responsible for the Quebec Referendum Act. Their complaint would have had to do with the Quebec legislation, and they would have had to complain to the Quebec Directeur général des élections.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I suppose you are a well-informed man. You should have known about such complaints, don't you think?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I must admit that I do not remember.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So according to you, there were potential problems, but in practice, do you remember whether people had to deal with these problems?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The public had to deal with them, since the federal government's advertising said one thing and the provincial government's advertising said something different. One case even made it to the Supreme Court. It had to do with the right to vote. Mr. Haig was deprived of his entitlement to vote because he had been a resident of Quebec for fewer than six months. Ten thousand other people were in the same situation. They were unable to vote in the referendum because they had been living in Quebec for less than six months. They were not able to vote in the referendum under the federal legislation because they were residents of Quebec, and not of one of the other provinces. So that case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do you believe that if another referendum were held one day, we could proceed in the same manner, that is to say, Quebec would use its Referendum Act and the federal government would use its legislation for the rest of Canada?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The same problems will reoccur, except for those that had to do with the Haig case, of course, because it was decided that Mr. Haig was not entitled to vote in the federal referendum. The other problems will remain. If ever we tried to hold another national referendum, with one law that applies to Quebec and another that applies to all the other provinces and territories, the same problems would reoccur. There is no way of solving them. There is a basic incompatibility.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Now let's talk about the regulations. Some aspects of the legislation are problematic and remain problematic with the adaptation of the Referendum Act. These are new elements, very technical ones, and it is hard for us to make a decision about them very quickly, but one question comes to mind.

The returning officers have to deal with all these elements. I observed that these people often have trouble adjusting to new legislation with a large number of changes. There will be changes to the referendum regulations, and the same returning officers will be involved.

Often people cast doubt on the competence of these people. I am being frank. When the appointments are made, competence criteria do not always prevail. Don't you think this is a problem, and that it could become even more of a problem because of the new regulation?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To answer the first part of your question, I would say that since the procedure is becoming identical to that of the Elections Act, thanks to this regulation, the returning officers' task should become easier, because the Elections Act is the legislation that prevailed during the election in 2000. If these procedures having to do with the registry, all the operational work tools, the way of counting the ballots and managing the offices become identical to what was in effect during the last election, so if everything that was different then is now identical, their task should be easier.

As for the appointment of returning officers, or what you called their competence, I intend to have another go at it when I table my report, which is planned for November 27, 2001, and to present possible amendments that I think would be desirable to the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Would you like us to go back to the former practice of having competitions to appoint these people?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I do not want to commit myself officially, but I said that I was looking at the various possibilities. I am in the process of deciding what recommendations to make, and I would not want to report on individual matters, but I am thinking very seriously about repeating this recommendation.

• 1130

Mr. Pierre Brien: I realize that my time is running out, but I would like to raise one final point that does not have to do directly with the regulation. We talk about this point when determining who is entitled to vote, when we are trying to let people who are outside of the area vote. What do you think of postal votes? In my opinion, this is an area for possible abuse. I saw this during the last election campaign. Some people asked for forms for other people and then voted on their behalf.

We often see this problem in dwellings where several people live. We ask for a photocopy of a piece of identification, and someone else makes the request. I have seen this kind of thing. I know you are going to tell me to report such cases when they occur, but it seems to me that the rules are not strict enough for postal votes, and that abuses are possible. Do you share my point of view, or do you think everything is just fine, both for the process used in a referendum and the process used during an election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The procedures have been set out in the legislation at the national level. I find that postal votes are a problem, particularly for Canadians overseas. They have to deal with a foreign post office in addition to the Canadian post office. In most cases, the foreign post office causes problems because the election campaign is only 36 days long. But I must admit that even if it lasted 47 days, this would only slightly improve the whole issue of mail-in ballots. The fact that they have to be mailed in is a problem. In my opinion, that is the major problem.

You seem to be saying that the registration procedures for postal votes are not strict enough. You mention people who are here in the country and who want to vote this way and who want to obtain a ballot. I can look at this issue once again and check what was done during the evaluation sessions for the last election campaign. If necessary, I will recommend that the procedures be tightened up.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I am nearly done. Many of the problems were solved by the use of mobile polls. Could you check who used them and to what extent, since these mobile polls solved the mobility problem?

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute, Pierre.

Colleagues, I have seven people on my list. If we're to move on to the second topic, which is the redistribution of ridings and which is important to us, I'm in your hands, but we need to move along a little bit.

I have Jay Hill, John Richardson, Yvon Godin, Scott Reid, Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond, and Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to note a concern. I agree with my colleague Mr. Regan, given the fact that this quite extensive piece of legislation was just given to us. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, you're trying to rush us so that we actually get on to another subject. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we might have to get the witnesses to come back just to deal with this one adequately, let alone getting on to another topic. I share the concern expressed by Mr. Regan about the fact that we haven't had a lot of time to delve into this and really put a lot of questions forward up to now.

Having not read through it extensively, I'm assuming we are going to be working any future referendum from the permanent voters' list, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, sir.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm sure you'll recall that I—and I assume probably 300 other members of Parliament—made you aware of all sorts of problems inherent in the permanent voters' list, of the problems that we had in the last election, less than a year ago.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I was listening, and I heard.

Mr. Jay Hill: I also assume that if we're going to use that list without enumeration, you have some mechanisms in place to correct a lot of the problems that we saw in last November's election.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We're implementing them as we speak, and it was my intention to provide the committee with an update on the measures that we are taking, for your review. I also wrote to you on October 15 of this year, sending you the copy of the list and asking you, once you've reviewed it, to advise us if there were mistakes that you wished to bring to our attention.

One of the things I promised last time was that we would listen to members of Parliament on a yearly basis when they had comments about the list. We are improving the mechanisms to update it. I mentioned to this committee—and I'll only take one second, because I know your time is precious—that we now have an agreement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and we will be able to add new electors to that list. We were only able to change the data for those who were already on the list before. We will be adding 275,000 new electors each year, of whom 225,000 are new 18-year-olds.

• 1135

That's one measure, and it is going to be in effect for the next taxation year. It's a major move in my view, but it's not the only one. I'll write to the committee, and I'll be prepared to appear before you to explain everything we're doing.

Mr. Jay Hill: All right.

In your opening remarks, you laid out that the use of a referendum in the future, under this referendum regulation, would be on issues relating to the Canadian Constitution. Could you just explain that, as briefly as possible?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: What that means is that a section in the Referendum Act says a referendum at the federal level can only be held on a constitutional matter. You cannot consult people on the death penalty, for example, unless it is dealt with in the Constitution.

Mr. Jay Hill: So at the present time, moral issues like the death penalty, since you mentioned it, would not be allowed under the regulation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No. There would have to be an amendment to the Referendum Act before such a referendum could be held at the federal level.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think that's important for Canadians to know, obviously. They should know what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed without further amendment to the regulation.

The minimum writ period is 36 days. It seems to me that this would be a pretty short period of time for presumably the two opposing sides in a referendum to get their messages out to the electorate. It's not restricted, but I understand that's the minimum allowed under the regulation. Can you explain why you would have such a short period as a minimum amount of time for a writ period?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Coincidentally, that is what we now have for an election, but that came after the Referendum Act. The 36-day period was agreed to and was passed by Parliament. It was proposed by the government of the day in its legislation in 1992. We had been consulted, and we felt we could administratively manage a referendum.

I think your question calls into play—and I'm pleased to make this point—the strongest point of the federal Referendum Act, and that is the attribution of three hours of free broadcast time to the committees of the yes side and the committees of the no side. It's that allocation that really levels the playing field between the yes and no sides. This is what was very efficient at the last referendum, because the no side had a lot less money than the yes side, based on the reports that we got. They had nine or ten times less.

In effect, one complaint that I don't remember hearing was that the writ period was too short for the referendum. In my view, based on their reports, both sides felt they had sufficient time to put out their messages.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just raised it as a possible concern.

On the maximum of $5,000 spent by any individual or group, how does the regulation prevent abuse in the sense of splitting the costs?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The $5,000 threshold is the point at which anyone—any committee, person, or group of persons—who wishes to spend $5,000 or more must register with the Chief Electoral Officer as a committee. It is not a maximum. It's a threshold. If they spend less than that, they don't even have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. Jay Hill: Is there no maximum, then?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is a maximum. In a national campaign, that maximum amounts to literally millions of dollars. That is the big difference between the federal legislation and the provincial legislation in Quebec, for example. That's why I put the emphasis on the free broadcast time, which is really the great equalizer under the federal referendum legislation.

It's per capita. If you are a group or a committee that registers and says you wish to do campaigning in this riding or in these ridings, then we multiply that by the number of electors that are on the list—and I forget what that number is, but we can get that number for you. It effectively means there is not an effective limit to the spending if you say you want to do a national campaign.

• 1140

Mr. Jay Hill: I just have one more quick question for this round, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Very briefly, Jay—and I get the message, but you might get mine. We normally address our remarks to the chair. I notice you had no difficulty doing that at the beginning, but you've moved away from it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr. Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jay Hill: —I have one final question for this round, and it has to do with the review.

I noticed in the regulation that there's a provision for an automatic review after three years. I guess the question jumped up at me that if there was no referendum in that three-year period, there probably wouldn't be a lot of use for a review. As we saw last year with the use of just the one example of the federal election, there were a lot of problems associated with the use of a permanent voters' list. I strongly suspect that the review, if and when one took place—and I certainly support that—would be after a referendum, because that's when a lot of problems would come to light.

I wondered why the regulation has the automatic review after three years. That is questionable. What use would that serve if there hasn't been a referendum in that three-year time period? Why wouldn't it state that the review is to occur after a certain period of time following a national referendum? That would be a more logical time to have a review, in my mind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Sir, the logic is impeccable, and that is what the legislators had in mind when they passed the legislation in 1992. The referendum was held, and the review, such as it was, took place in 1995. All you have now is that this is what exists under the statute, but that initial review was supposed to have been done. There's no need to do another one in three years' time, as of this date. That one is passed.

To complete my answer on a previous question, the per capita allocation is around 60 cents, although I may be off by a couple of cents per capita. If you're doing the whole of the country, you multiply the number of electors—21 million, approximately—by 60 cents, and that gives you the amount of money you can spend as a committee.

The Chair: John Richardson, Yvon Godin, and Scott Reid.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to bring to light some of the things here that are a little on the loose side, Mr. Kingsley.

The House of Commons should be the recipient of this information that you bring forward to us. I think the process starts with this committee, to which you report in detail, and then the committee reports to the House of Commons. That's the logic we've been following for a long time, and we must correct it at this date, as a matter of fact. It then has closure. Once it hits the House of Commons, it's closure. But if we drift it out and drift it out for another six months, it's forgettable.

So my statement is that, one, we receive it here, Mr. Chairman, and that the committee then looks at it to see if there's anything they want to change before we report to Parliament. That's my suggestion, and I feel it's not a very onerous project.

The Chair: My understanding is that Mr. Kingsley does report to this committee. I think we had questions before about the timing, and we had a little bit of an exchange about that in order to understand the nature of the committee.

The committee may or may not do a report on a hearing such as this, but the record is there and the House of Commons has the record available to it. I would anticipate that we would only do a formal report to the House of Commons if there was something in particular that we wished to raise.

Mr. John Richardson: But we should report something. It could be just a straight one-paragrapher.

The Chair: Okay, I hear what you're saying. Thank you very much.

That's for the committee, Mr. Kingsley, but if you have any comments on it, that's fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No.

The Chair: We'll take under advisement what Mr. Richardson has said.

Yvon Godin, Scott Reid, Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond, and Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question, because many of the questions that I wanted to ask have already been asked. There is no point in repeating them.

After the 1992 Referendum, if there were problems, for example with the declaration of amounts spent, either by the YES committee or by the NO committee, what kind of follow-up were you able to do?

• 1145

After a referendum, everything is over, but in the case of an election, the member of Parliament remains and the candidates are there. So after an election, there can be follow-up and investigation. In this particular case, what kind of follow-up can be done? What is the procedure?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My office does the follow-up, Mr. Godin. Committees that are registered with the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer must report on their activities, and we analyze these reports to ensure that they are complete. We also handle the public disclosure, which allows Canadians to file a complaint if they wish to do so if they think that a report is incomplete.

We have also referred certain files from certain committees to the commissioner for investigation because we thought that there were obvious anomalies in the reports. The commissioner carried out his investigation, and I think that in some cases, legal action was taken. So to sum up, follow-up is done mainly by my office, but we provide the data to Canadians so that they too have an opportunity to file a complaint. That happened after the 1992 referendum.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are there any recommendations on this point in the new changes you are suggesting?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are not any, since this is an adaptation. We plan to make adjustments to the system and continue what we did in 1992, in the event another federal referendum is held under the federal legislation.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Scott Reid, then Joe Jordan.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before going to the questions I had intended to ask you, Mr. Kingsley, I want to go back to one of the comments you made with regard to one of the questions Mr. Hill raised.

With regard to the 1992 referendum law, you said a referendum review, such as it was, took place in 1995. My understanding is that the review of the act called for in section 40 of the act has not in fact taken place. Subsection 40(1) says:

On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, this Act shall be referred to such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.

Am I wrong in thinking that this review has not taken place?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There was one, and that's why I said, “such as it was”. My recollection is that there was one committee at which this matter was discussed, and there was agreement not to proceed with anything further. In effect, it was a non-review review. That's my recollection of it.

Technically, I think the members of the committee at the time felt they had done what was required. I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I do recollect such a movement, such a discussion.

Mr. Scott Reid: You wouldn't recall which committee that was, would you?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Scott Reid: Do you recall the date on which this took place?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think it was 1995, but I can't recollect the date.

Mr. Scott Reid: All right, I appreciate that. I'll look into it. It was a question that...at the time, I was a staffer here. I prepared a great deal of material that I had hoped to bring forward for review through one of our MPs. It may have slipped under my nose completely unnoticed, notwithstanding the fact that I was paying close attention. It must have been a very obscure review indeed.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I share your pain.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Scott Reid: I wanted to just ask a question that you may have dealt with, but of which I'm not aware. It's a question on the costs of referenda. Looking at the referendum that was conducted in 1992, and imagining that a new referendum was to be conducted on more or less similar lines but under the new regulations, would the costs be changed very much by the new regulations, or not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, not at all. It would be a straight indexing, for all intents and purposes. There would be lower costs because there no longer is any door-to-door enumeration. In effect, the economies that arise out of the use of the register would occur once again for the referendum. And the amount is not insubstantial, it is a substantial, between maybe $30 million and $40 million.

Mr. Scott Reid: In Quebec, the referendum in 1992 was conducted by provincial authorities. There have also been other referenda conducted by provincial authorities. There was one more recently in Newfoundland, for example. For the sake of argument, in comparing the costs of those referenda with with federally-run referenda, does it strike you that the costs would be greater or lesser using the law as it now stands? I realize it's a hard question to answer off the top of your head, but do you have a sense of whether or not the law as it now stands is cost-effective, or perhaps more cost-effective than those in place in some of the provinces?

• 1150

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: A lot depends on the tariff of fees more than anything else—and that's the same for a general election.

In the main, we're slightly under for a number of provinces and slightly over for a number of other provinces. I know that because the umbrella organizations in Quebec are funded publicly, that shoots up the costs when they're compared to the costs under the federal regime.

Mr. Scott Reid: Do you mean the cost of administering the umbrella organizations, checking up on them, and making sure—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I mean the contributions that are made from the public purse in Quebec for the yes committee and the no committee. Those are not made here, because the only contributions to the committees—and they are plural, to many of the yes and many of the no—are to the attribution of free time. The Chief Electoral Officer doesn't pay for that, and the committees don't pay for that, the broadcasters pay for it.

Mr. Scott Reid: That's all I had to ask. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Scott.

Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond, Carolyn Parrish, and Jay Hill.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, when you were here last spring, I think you indicated that, post-election 2000, you might be coming back with some suggested regulatory changes to the Canada Elections Act. Is that still your intention, and is there any sense that there might be changes to this act as well?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My intention is to table with the Speaker, on November 27 of this year, my recommendations for amending the statute, beyond the procedural matters and to other matters. If there are any recommendations in there that are of a procedural nature, they may impact upon this regulation. But I would urge the members not to take that too much at heart, because I suspect it will take some time before action takes place on my recommendations and before some or any of them are translated into law.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

I want to switch to something Mr. Hill touched on, and that's the permanent voters' list. If I remember the meeting post-election, a lot of MPs had concerns about whether or not it was working properly. We were in a kind of transition.

The problem we face is that.... Historically, we used to nail the list to telephone polls and people could check to see whether they were on it or not. For legitimate privacy reasons, we quit doing that. You give us a CD now. If somebody walks into my constituency office and asks if they're on the voters' list, can I check it and tell them?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My answer would be, yes, if reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the persons is who they say they are—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, that's my question.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: —and if they don't necessarily go in and start fooling around with your computer to check out other names, or if one of your staff members does so.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The other option that they have is to phone Elections Canada, correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'm not sure a phone call will do it, because we have no way of ascertaining who is at the other end. People do write in, though, and that gives us a control on the address. We then get a document with a signature on it, so we'll be able to pursue it if anything ever turns out to be not correct.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My thinking is that if we can spread this out over four years, it's manageable. If it all comes in at the last minute, it becomes a bit of a problem.

Has any thought been given to perhaps formalizing the role of the constituency offices in the ridings, in a non-partisan way, to make them places where someone could check to see if they're on the list or not, rather than having some completely other organization do it? We have at least one office in every riding that people understand is a federal office.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I said, if people wish to do that, you can even publicize that you make that service available. It would not be a problem under the law as long as they don't have direct access to what's on there and they only ask the question. You people then only have to make sure they are who they say they are.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If I wanted to pursue that, could I put together a bit of a plan and have you check it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Of course.

Mr. Joe Jordan: All right, I'm going to do that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And you may then wish to share that with the committee and with all of the House of Commons. But I would be more than happy to do that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

The Chair: And you may wish to share your remarks with the chair, Joe.

• 1155

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Michel, Carolyn, and Jay.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, Madam, I have two concerns, and I would like to ask you to tell me exactly where in the regulations I can find a response to these concerns.

First of all, I am concerned about referendum spending done by third parties. We have experienced two recent events in Quebec. I still remember the first quite well, because it occurred on this very day six years ago. On October 30, 1995, a referendum was held on the constitutional future of Quebec. I already know that you are going to tell me that it was held under the Quebec legislation, but this is one example I would like to give you of certain flaws. After that, I will give you one example from the last election campaign.

We all remember the famous love-in on October 27 at Canada Place just before the 1995 referendum. Canadian Airlines offered round-trip flights between Vancouver and Montreal for $99 to allow the rest of Canada to come and tell us Quebeckers how much they loved us. Every day in the House we have the chance to see how the rest of Canada loves us, in any event.

So there was a problem with third-party spending, in terms of the compiling under the Quebec legislation. Does the regulation you suggest correct this flaw?

I have another example, much more close to home, from the last federal election. In any event, we did file a complaint with the commissioner. I would like to know whether the regulation corrects this flaw, which allowed third parties to put up signs above or below Bloc Québécois signs, on nearly all the telephone poles in the ridings of the Quebec City region, signs that said things like, “Block the Bloc” or “No municipal amalgamations.” We were told that it was not another political party that had put up these signs, but in my opinion, they were totally illegal.

I would like to know whether your regulation does something about this flaw, in the case of a possible referendum. That is the first thing.

I am going to ask my second question right away, because if your answer is long... Fine, let's go ahead with that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The answer is very short. No, the current regulation will not solve any problem that exists under the Quebec referendum legislation.

Mr. Michel Guimond: And what about the illegal signs that we saw during the last federal election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You mentioned that you had filed a complaint with the commissioner, or that someone did. The commissioner is the one who will have to respond regarding his investigation or investigations, if there was more than one complaint.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Does the regulation provide the proper framework for referendum spending by third parties?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is no referendum spending by third parties. Under the Referendum Act, either you are a committee or you are nothing at all. If you are set up as a committee, it is because you intend to spend more than $5,000 and you must register. If you are spending less than $5,000, you are entitled to run advertising of less than $5,000. That is not against the law. But there is nothing about third parties. The concept of a third party does not exist in the federal Referendum Act.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Does this regulation tighten up the rules and require voters to provide identification so that they can vote in a referendum? Would they have to produce some kind of document? Did I just not see it in there or...?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, it's because it's exactly the same as in the Canada Elections Act. There are no differences between the two. The procedures are exactly the same.

• 1200

That is the very goal of this process. We want to place the provisions of the Canada Elections Act in the Referendum Act so that we do not have to draft 300 clauses and so we can keep the Referendum Act, which has 40 sections. The remaining provisions are adaptations of the Canada Elections Act. So the procedures will be exactly the same for voting, holding a vote, organizing polling stations, using the list, updating the list, voting overseas, and so on. All these procedures will remain exactly the same. There will be no difference between the two. That is the objective of the legislators within this provision.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Will you be considering the current provisions of the act for our report coming out on November 27?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, I am currently considering them.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You are going to see whether the current rules for identifying voters are sufficient to ensure a free vote.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, and if I think the rules are sufficient, I will not be making a recommendation. Thank you.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Following up on that, Jean-Pierre, you have an advisory committee on which all the registered parties are represented, like the Green Party, as well as all the other established federal parties. With respect to what Michel was just asking, because this referendum material is really part of the Canada Elections Act, is there not an opportunity for the federal parties to comment on these things through the advisory committee, as well as on general matters having to do with the elections act?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, by the very nature of this exercise—which is to take the Canada Elections Act and apply it to the referendum—they have commented, because they commented on the Canada Elections Act. I have not sent or thought of sending them this instrument, because it simply takes the Canada Elections Act as it exists and puts it into place for a referendum.

I think I notified them that I was going to be taking this to the committee here, but they did not indicate any kind of interest. They already manifested their areas of concern after the last election, and those concerns are being taken into account for my report.

The Chair: It is just that I thought the Bloc, for example, like the other parties, has a way to give advice on the Canada Elections Act through that committee.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, and one of the former members of that committee is sitting in this room right now.

The Chair: Good. I'm very pleased about that.

Carolyn Parrish, then Jay Hill—and, colleagues, we're circulating the second presentation, whether we need it today or not.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have two questions.

One is in regard to Joe Jordan's spontaneous moment of genius that occurred a few minutes ago—

Mr. Joe Jordan: That happens all the time.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: —because once Mr. Jordan provides the service, it will spread like wildfire across the country.

I get 3,000 or 4,000 new Canadians per year in my riding, Joe, so this will be a very taxing problem in our office.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's going to be a kiosk. You won't have to have anything—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yeah, right. And you can come sit at it.

I have a question for the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Chair: How long does it take for the new Canadians to get on the updated disk? I know we get one a year. Would the new Canadians be put on it on a yearly basis?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They're put on more frequently than that. I think we get the information from the citizenship people every three months. We have an agreement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and we have the ones who agree to be added—you must remember that—on that cycle.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, we only get a disk once a year.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's right, in accordance with the statute.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, perfect.

Thank you, Joe. We're going to have to talk about that.

The second question is something that doesn't really have to do with what this presentation has been giving us, but it's important to me. During the 2000 election, there was a $9,000 to $10,000 verbal and pictorial assault on my personage by what was supposed to be a third party but which never registered. This was being investigated by Elections Canada, and it turned out Canada Post was paid by a central fund for Canadian Alliance candidates for Etobicoke and Mississauga.

If it turns out that it was one of my opponents who in fact put out a $10,000 drop without registering it as part of his electoral expenses, what are the penalties?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Because the question is theoretical, I will answer accordingly, without prejudging the outcome of any investigation. Any candidate who exceeds the spending limit has committed an offence. If the commissioner is satisfied that it was an offence committed under the statute by a person who knew what he or she was doing—intent—then there is prosecution before the courts of Canada.

• 1205

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, if it doesn't exceed the expense limit but it's still a piece that has not been duly—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If an expenditure was incurred and was not reported, theoretically that is also an offence under the statute, and it's subject to the same procedures of investigation and prosecution.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: What sort of fine would that generate?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: My recollection is that it's between $1,000 and $5,000, but I stand to be corrected on that. If I stand to be corrected, we will do so in a letter that we're going to be sending to the committee.

There is also the possibility of a prison term, but there has not been any prison term for an election offence for a long time in this country—certainly not in the eleven and a half years that I have been Chief Electoral Officer.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: This is my last question, through you, Mr. Chairman. It has been almost a year that this investigation has been going on. Can I be optimistic that it will be concluded soon?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will raise your wish, your optimism, with the Commissioner of Canada Elections. I want to remind people that he acts independently of the Chief Electoral Officers in each investigation. I keep abreast of how things are going, but without asking for detailed information on every case. This is the only way I can manage someone who is independent from me.

The Chair: Jay Hill, very briefly, then Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just following up on the line of questioning I was pursuing earlier, this review of the referendum regulations was triggered because of the passage of Bill C-2 and the changes to the Canada Elections Act. As part and parcel of that review, did you receive anything from various sources in terms of proposed changes that they would like to see in the referendum regulations, or was this work done in a vacuum just to ensure that the referendum regulations adhered to the new Canada Elections Act?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This is all that is required under the statute, because this is a straight adaptation of the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of a referendum. The Chief Electoral Officer has no way in which to recommend that you put something in the regulation that is different from what is in the Canada Elections Act because of a consultation that I held. There would be nothing gained by this. As a matter of fact, I would create expectations that could not be met. As I said, it's a straight adaptation of what's there under the new Canada Elections Act. That's all it ever was, and that's all it will ever be.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take two minutes to tell the committee that what is going on here is a most unusual thing, and that's why there's a certain unease with the committee. It is the only statute that I'm aware of for which an officer of Parliament effectively accepts recommendations from committees of the House and the Senate, reviews them, and decides what to put in the text of law. Do you know that initially, when the draft legislation was presented, there was not even that consultation with committees of the House and the Senate? When one of the members of the committee asked me at a committee hearing whether or not I would agree to such a thing, it was then that I said I would.

What I would prefer is that I not be required to table this before you, and that you take over the job of passing the law here, because it's one job that you have delegated to me. It's a very unusual procedure for an officer of Parliament to have this authority. It's something I'm not comfortable with. I indicated that at the time, but I agreed to it because Parliament wished to have an instrument that would go through rapidly—the Referendum Act in 1992—and I think you should consider that very seriously, either before or after you've passed this particular one. It should be removed from the purview of the Chief Electoral Officer. I would not feel deprived at all, not one iota. I'm doing your job, which is passing law. It's not something I'm normally paid to do.

Mr. John Richardson: That's what I tried to do for you with my motions.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I know. I saw that and I appreciated that, Mr. Richardson.

The Chair: Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, let me get to what I'm trying to get a handle on here.

Contained in the referendum regulation was the review after three years. This was passed into law on June 23, 1992, so I'm assuming the review took place in 1995. At that time, were mechanisms in place, through committees of the House or through some other public process, whereby individuals or organizations across the country who wanted to see the regulations changed—for example, to include a citizens-generated initiative—

• 1210

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No such review took place with the Canadian public, sir. Whatever occurred, it occurred very rapidly in committee, to the best of my recollection—I stand to be corrected on that, but that's what I've indicated. There was no formal process undertaken in which even members of Parliament gave their views on how to broaden or even eliminate the statute. Nothing was discussed.

Mr. Jay Hill: There was nothing in this particular review that you were mandated to undertake to allow for that type of public process, even through MPs, because you were merely changing the regulations to adhere to the new Canada Elections Act, is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's correct. I was not asked to do anything for the committee—to analyse its effects or whatever—other than the report that I tabled on the referendum, which I tabled before the House.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: It's something I think the committee is going to have to come back to.

I've been advised, Jay, that in 1994 or so, the committee did do a study of referenda in general and of related matters. Maybe that's something we should all get to see.

Truly, colleagues, I'm not trying to stop this.

Mr. Kingsley, you can well see that there are a number of issues here, and I think it's almost certain that you will be back before us again. On the other hand, if we can get through these three questions, we might have your other presentation. Members will get their heads around that—I know it's a little bit unusual—and then, sometime before Christmas perhaps, maybe you could come in again to deal with follow-up, as well as with the matter of redistribution of ridings. I'm in the hands of my colleagues, though. You can see their names keep appearing here.

Jacques Saada, Cheryl Gallant, then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very short little preamble, and then I will ask a very short little question. My very short preamble is in response to my colleague, Mr. Guimond, who referred to the famous love-in. Like most Quebeckers, I said that the love-in was mutual, that this affection was mutual toward my counterparts from the rest of Canada.

As for my questions, the first has to do with the list of electors, which has a direct impact on the holding of a referendum. I understand that changes will be presented on November 27. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. The amendments to the act will be in the report, and the act includes the operations of the registry.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see. Now, about the presentation of the list of electors, for example... I am not talking about the content, that is to say, the names that will be on the list. In the past, the list of electors was organized by address. Lately, the list has been in alphabetical order, which caused considerable problems for women who had got married and their maiden name was on the list rather than their married name. Are you going to make any recommendations about the way these lists are organized?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is a question of administrative procedures. We prepared the list in the way that the Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties had agreed to. Because of the comments that were made here earlier—and I believe that you made them, as did others—we are currently looking at how we can change this procedure and perhaps produce lists both ways, to please everyone. So that would be an administrative matter. I will get back to the committee on this as well.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Marlene Catterall, then Paul Macklin, briefly.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wanted to clarify something. Perhaps I wasn't listening carefully enough. If I was, I'm totally confused by your statement that you passed law. Since when, and how does that happen?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The Referendum Act says the Chief Electoral Officer adapts the Canada Elections Act, and does so after consulting with the committee of the House and consulting with the committee of the Senate. I'm consulting you right now. After that, I take your advice, I take your views, I put them in, and that becomes the law of the land.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Are you talking about changes to the law, not regulations?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We call them regulations, but they effectively become the law because I have adapted the statute and the regulations have force of statute.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I do think that's something we might like to have a look at.

• 1215

I hope we will have an opportunity fairly soon to deal with the electoral list and what changes are being made to the process. For instance, an invitation to comment on the list as I get it is totally unrealistic when I have a list with the number of names that I have. However, if I got a separate list of what changes there were from the last edition, or if I got more regular updates, that would be possible. In any case, what I'm looking for is a discussion at some time in the very near future so that we can perhaps improve that whole process.

The Chair: I've been making a few notes here, because I think the committee should discuss a number of things, probably in camera, when we're considering another report.

There is the question of the mechanism, the link, between the committee and the Chief Electoral Officer. There is the question of how the three-year review has been dealt with. There is the electoral list. There is the suggestion of a formal report to the House of Commons. We should consider all of those.

There is also another thought, Jean-Pierre. As you know, I was chair of this committee before. It does seem to me that, whatever the circumstances, even without any particular issue, it might be good for it to be a regular habit that we have a regular meeting between you and the committee.

All of those are things we can deal with, colleagues.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would welcome that, sir.

The Chair: I realize you would, just so you know.

I'm going to Paul Macklin. Then, if I can, I'm going to stop this in order that Jean-Pierre can make the other presentation, which would set us up for another meeting.

Paul Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you. I'm more or less following up on Marlene's point.

I was looking at section 7 of the act itself, and when I was looking through the material that we were given, it appeared to me that we were amending the law and were not doing traditional regulations pursuant to the law.

Something catches my attention here. I'm not certain that anything within subsection 7(7) of the statute indicates how long a period of time the committees of both the Senate and the House—the ones to which it has been referred—have to report to you prior to when you make your deposit with the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Basically, it's a seven-day period once you do that deposit.

I have a concern that really relates to the act itself, and it arises from the concerns that were raised earlier. Theoretically, you could come in, do your deposit, and it's law seven days later. Although it would automatically be referred to the committees, they likely would be lucky to have received the material, let alone to have studied it.

My concern is—I direct it to you, and maybe it just reinforces what you said earlier—that the law itself on this Referendum Act, under section 7, certainly needs to be re-examined, in my opinion. It needs to be given some sober second thought, in light of the comments and in light of the situation we find ourselves in today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I would not take the regulation or make it into law without having had the opportunity to appear before this committee and before the one in the Senate. I would not do that.

Mr. Paul Macklin: But you could.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think I have to urge the members to remember that when the law was passed in 1992, a certain speed was associated with this. The members of the committee said to give the committees only seven days. Frankly, I would wish that the committees do otherwise. They should take all the time they need. At the same time, I would wish that the law be changed eventually, so that the Chief Electoral Officer is not in this position. I don't need to be in this position.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Mr. Chair, I think that's something we should follow up.

The Chair: We'll note that as well. As I said, it does seem to me that, in addition to formal public hearings, the committee should get its head around this in a more practical, private way.

Colleagues, my suggestion is that we ask Mr. Kingsley to go through the material he has prepared, but my thought was not to get to a formal list, if that's okay with you. Are you comfortable with that? Yes?

In other words, we'll deal with this, Mr. Kingsley, and if you were then willing, we would arrange another meeting. You and your colleagues could return, and we would begin with the follow-up to the presentation you make now. Members will have heard it, and we might also continue with some of the items we've been discussing, as well as some others.

Are you comfortable with that, colleagues?

An hon. member: Agreed.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, I am.

The Chair: If you would proceed then, we're going to hear the presentation. Unless there are some technical, very rapid questions, I'll then adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1220

Number one, I would accept an invitation to appear before this committee with five minutes' notice at any time. If you give me more than that, I'll take it, but I'm here to serve Parliament through this committee. But any time you wish to see me, I'm available.

I also wish to mention that with respect to this appearance and this procedure, we were in touch with the officials of the committee at least three weeks before the October 5 letter, so that may explain some of it.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, you know establishment of this committee and all the committees in the House was delayed for a variety of reasons that you're familiar with.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With the committee's permission, I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the readjustment of the federal electoral boundaries that is scheduled to begin on March 12, 2002.

On May 23, 2001, I wrote to all members of Parliament and senators to inform them of the upcoming redistribution. I also spoke about this in my recent appearance before this committee.

Representation in the House of Commons is readjusted after each decennial census, in order to reflect changes and movements in Canada's population, and in accordance with the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The readjustment of the federal electoral district boundaries begins when the Chief Statistician of Canada prepares and sends the certified census return to the minister designated for the purposes of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I also get that document, and the Chief Statistician has confirmed to me that the latest census return will be available on March 12, 2002, as planned.

Readjustment of federal electoral boundaries is carried out by ten independent commissions, one for each province. I expect ten federal Electoral Boundaries Commissions to be established by March 12, 2002.

When the last redistribution was conducted, there were eleven commissions. There was one for the two electoral districts in the Northwest Territories, before the creation of Nunavut. Now that the Northwest Territories and Nunavut constitute one electoral each, Electoral Boundaries Commissions are not required for them. The same obviously continues to apply to the Yukon Territory, which is one riding federally.

Under the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Elections Canada provides a variety of professional, technical, and administrative services to the commissions. All amounts required for the payment of salaries and other expenses under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are determined by the Chief Electoral Officer, and are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, under my statutory authority.

In preparation for the upcoming redistribution, my office is putting in place the infrastructure to ensure that Statistics Canada and Natural Resources Canada assist Elections Canada during redistribution, concerning the certification of population data and the verification of boundary descriptions, as is required under the legislation for them.

The forecasted budget for the upcoming redistribution is expected to be approximately $10 million. This covers all expenditures incurred by the commissions, as well as those incurred by Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Elections Canada, of course.

I'm also sharing information with Elections Ontario on an as-we-go basis, as this will be the first readjustment of federal electoral boundaries since the electoral boundaries in the province of Ontario were aligned perfectly with federal electoral district boundaries.

The chief justices of all the provinces were contacted last March and again earlier this month, and they have been asked to identify a judge to sit as chair of the commission for their respective provinces, in order to meet the March 12, 2002, target date. I also took the opportunity on both occasions to provide them with information on the process and the projected schedule for the work of the chair of the commission. As well, I have written to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the purpose of appointing the two other members of each commission. I am informed that he has received my two letters.

With the assistance of Public Works and Government Services Canada, office space for the commissions is being identified across the country. In the past, these offices have been located in the larger cities in each province and territory, but that of course depends upon the chairman.

Preparations have begun to bring commission members and the commission secretaries to a three-day conference here in Ottawa following their appointment. Guest speakers and academics will also be invited to address the concept of community of interest. Other topics to be discussed at the conference include roles and responsibilities of the commission, developing boundary scenarios, a communications strategy for them, and a review of the legal issues. We will also provide advice to the commissions concerning the names of electoral districts that meet the requirements set by the Geographical Names Board of Canada, in order to avoid future requests for name changes that could become very expensive to implement and sometimes are confusing to the public.

• 1225

[Translation]

For the first time, a Web module entitled Federal Representation 2004, accessible through the Elections Canada Web site, is being developed and will be available on March 12, 2002 for those who would like information on the process and to communicate with each of the ten commissions electronically. Our Web site is found at www.elections.ca.

For each province, detailed maps will be available on the Web module and will show four scenarios: the current one, the proposed one, the report one and the final one superimposed over each other in order to display the changes in the boundaries at the various stages in the redistribution process.

The development of a redistricting tool which will use census and geography data to electronically and interactively produce boundary scenarios to help the commissions in their work will begin shortly.

A communications plan is being prepared to identify strategies to inform the public on the process and encourage the participation of all segments of our society, including Aboriginal and ethnocultural communities. I may ask for your assistance as members of Parliament in reaching out to Canadians to make them aware of their right to participate in this important process. I would like to hear your reaction to this proposal.

In addition, there could be as many as five provincial redistributions taking place during the life of the readjustment of the federal electoral boundaries. As a result, our key messages will have to be appropriately directed to avoid public confusion. So, up to five provinces could be carrying out the same work.

I would like to bring to your attention a few key dates from the projected schedule for redistribution:

First, each commission will meet to consider a number of scenarios to determine how to divide the province into the number of seats allocated to that province. The Chief Electoral Officer is the person who does the calculations.

Once they have agreed on a given scenario, each commission will publish its proposal.

Then, the commission will hold public hearings between July and October 2002 to ensure public participation in the redistribution process.

The commissions will then review their proposals in light of the representations made at the public hearings and will draft their report which will be tabled in the House of Commons between July 2002 and March 2003 and referred to this committee.

At this point, members of the House of Commons will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed ridings through a process co-ordinated through this committee. This is expected to take place between September 2002 and April 2003.

This committee will report back to the commissions through the Speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer. The commissions will consider the objections raised by the members of Parliament and then issue their final report, all between October 2002 and June 2003.

The timeframes reflect the fact that the commissions' reports are tabled in a staggered fashion, based on the workload of each province.

Finally, a representation order would be proclaimed by June 30, 2003, barring delays, and come into force with the first dissolution of Parliament to occur at least one year after the proclamation. Therefore, any federal general election called after June 30, 2004, would be conducted using the boundaries specified under the new representation order, as long as there is no delay caused by the various commissions. We have prepared the most optimistic scenario possible.

I am pleased to provide you with a copy of the projected schedule today. Actually, I believe the schedule has been distributed.

We would be happy to answer any question you might have, if time permits, or if you prefer, we would be pleased to meet with you again after this presentation.

[English]

The Chair: We welcome Monsieur Carol Lesage to the table.

I do have four short, technical questions, beginning with Cheryl Gallant, who will be followed by Carolyn Parrish, Joe Jordan, and Marlene Catterall.

I will keep them short, colleagues, if you don't mind. We will have another meeting. You can tell this is the sort of thing our colleagues in the House are going to be asking us about for the next couple of years.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: My question is in relation to the process—and pardon me if my question reflects my newness to it.

• 1230

As a point of clarification, when these new boundaries are set, in terms of the list of returning officers appointed for each riding, are they from a list provided by the Prime Minister's Office only, or do individual members of all political parties have an opportunity to recommend someone for the position in their riding?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't know the answer to that question, but I would be surprised if it were the latter.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, then Joe Jordan.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think you said the Chief Justice of each province appoints a judge to be in charge, and that the Speaker's office then appoints two persons. If it's truly through the Speaker's office, do you have no control over who is appointed?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We have no control, but I have provided the Speaker with a list of potential names, through the networks of academics who are interested in electoral matters and who have indicated an interest in redistribution as a process. That was forwarded to the Speaker, but he determines whether he wishes to use the list or not.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have a second question, very quickly and through you, Mr. Chair, If this committee and the House of Commons wanted to cap the number of ridings at 301, what would it do to your process, and at what time would we make that decision?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You need to make it as soon as possible, because the process starts on March 12. Nothing would prevent you from passing that law up until the effects of redistribution are felt, which will be June 30, 2004. In other words, the process would go on as you consider a law, and then your law would have to pass.

The Chair: We have to keep this short.

Carolyn, I'm told that would involve not only changing the act, but changing the Constitution, so we certainly would have to move.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Why can't we do it? We can do everything else in here, Peter.

The Chair: We can change the act and change the Constitution. I'm just saying that's what's involved.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Don't shy away from work here.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to Mr. Kingsley, this is just a technical question. I realize and appreciate the fact that he is coming back and that we'll get into this in more detail.

The variable is when the government calls the election, although you assume it will be in four years or somewhere thereabouts. If I'm reading this correctly, we could be in a situation in which potential redistribution of ridings is announced publicly, but we then go into an election with the old boundaries, while everybody knows the boundaries will be different after the election. Therefore, the MP who is trying to be elected in the next election will be...we could end up with...is that a concern in terms of...it would be nice if this process would fit between elections.

The Chair: Do you have any short answers, Mr. Kingsley?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is a concern.

The Chair: Okay.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Good answer.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, like many others, I have been through this process before. I'm wondering if we will have another opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Kingsley, because I believe those of us who have experienced it might have some very useful comments on the process. They might even help us to come to a more mutually agreeable solution at the end of the process. For instance, I noted in your comments that there's an opportunity for MPs to object toward the end of the process. Hopefully we won't get to that point. In my view, there are better ways of doing the process so that MPs aren't put in the position of objecting to decisions that have already been taken. So I hope we will have another opportunity to do that very soon, before this kicks off in March.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would welcome that with open arms.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, we appreciate that.

Colleagues, I do apologize. The criticism I received earlier was correct. I did underestimate the time that was necessary on the referendum matter, because in my mind it was more technical than anything else. We will therefore meet on these matters that have been raised.

Mr. Kingsley, we'll look forward to at least one written response. We'd be glad to receive that material.

We will have another meeting on this specific topic, and perhaps follow up on some general matters that have been raised here today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When would that be?

The Chair: We don't know yet.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Very good. Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, just so you know, our meeting on Thursday is a continuation of the point of privilege on Bill C-36. As I said at the beginning, my thought is that we follow through on that point of privilege next week, hopefully to conclusion. We then need to return to not only this, but also the matter of votable private members' items.

• 1235

I want to thank Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Diane Davidson, Holly McManus, and Carol Lesage for being with us today. We look forward to seeing you all again in the near future.

The meeting is adjourned until Thursday at 11:00 a.m.