PRHA 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, April 28, 1998

• 1113

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, today's meeting deals with orders of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 26, 1998, the main estimates 1998-99, vote 20 under “Privy Council, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer”, and of March 25, 1998, on report on plans and priorities, sessional paper number 8520-361-137.

Our witnesses today with respect to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer are Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer; Carol Lesage, director of operations; Jacques Girard, director of legal services; and Janice Vézina, director, election financing.

Mr. Kingsley, we welcome you and your colleagues here. We have seen a good deal of Monsieur Girard in recent weeks and we've appreciated having him here—on another matter, I might say.

I believe, by the way, colleagues, we have notes provided by Mr. Kingsley.

• 1115

Mr. Kingsley, if it's okay with you, we'd be glad of an opening statement. Then we could proceed to questions and answers.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My remarks shouldn't take more than eight or nine minutes, depending upon the accents and where I put them.

I'm very pleased to be with you again and to present the expenditure plan of my office for the coming fiscal year. You've already introduced my colleagues, so I won't go into any further detail on that.

Today, with your permission, I would like to take the eight or nine minutes that I mentioned to comment on the highlights of our report on plans and priorities for 1998-99. Then we will more than welcome your questions.

My comments fall into three broad areas: Elections Canada's accountability to Parliament; accomplishments from the current year; and our key plans for 1998-99. I'll begin with our accountability to Parliament.

Members of the committee are aware that the agency has historically operated under two separate budgetary authorities: the administrative vote and the statutory authority. The administrative vote—or vote 20—is the portion of our funding that the Treasury Board controls. This is what you are considering now in committee for reporting to the House. Essentially, it provides for the salaries of a core group of our full-time employees.

All our other expenditures fall under statutory authority. They include the following: the costs of services, supplies and staff necessary in preparing for and conducting general elections, by-elections and referendums; the costs of special projects to improve the electoral process, such as the national register of electors; and provision of advice and support on electoral matters.

For the 1997-98 fiscal year just completed, we spent a total of $204 million. For the 1998-99 fiscal year, covered in the report before you, our planned statutory and voted expenditures are $32 million. Naturally, a general election, by-election or referendum would change our needs. If this happens, the extra spending requirements will need to be covered by supplementary estimates.

Before discussing our plans and priorities for the coming year, I'd like to touch on some of our accomplishments last year.

There was, of course, an election last year. Further, we did the final enumeration in April, which we used to build the national register of electors. We also dealt with changes to the Canada Elections Act that shortened the electoral calendar and staggered the voting hours, and, under redistribution, we were using a new electoral map with 301 ridings, up from 295. Since then, of course, we have also conducted a by-election in Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Here's what happened. Parliament passed the legislation in December 1996, we did the final enumeration in April, and the general election was in June. The enumeration cost an estimated $72 million, which was $7.3 million less than we expected. The election cost an estimated $129.4 million, which was $22.7 million less than expected. Therefore there was a savings—unexpected—of $30 million over and above the savings projected because of the establishment of the register.

As I have highlighted to the committee in the past, the estimated development costs of the national register of electors remain at $13.3 million and the annual cost of maintaining the register remains at $5 million. But when we use the register in the next two general election, Elections Canada will cut voter registration costs by at least $30 million at each event. That amount includes amortizing the $5 million annual costs for maintaining the register between elections. So it's a net saving savings which amortizes the $5 million that we spend each year to maintain the register.

In other words, the expenditures made in 1997-98 to build the national register of electors are an investment that will reap savings over the long term and obviously forever.

[Translation]

I would now like to take the opportunity to highlight the initiatives and plans of Elections Canada for fiscal year 1998-99. Let me begin by outlining what we do. Our activities support three broad areas.

Firstly, we help maintain the integrity of the electoral process by delivering electoral events that are fair, transparent and remove barriers to participation.

• 1120

Secondly, we remain ready for electoral events and improve the way we deliver these events.

Thirdly, we advise and support electoral stakeholders, including parliamentarians and electoral boundaries commissions.

Even in years without national electoral events, we have to remain ready at all times and deliver by-elections that are required. Just recently, for example, we conducted a by-election in British Columbia.

Each electoral event give us the chance to evaluate what we do. In this case, we learned more about how to use technology to improve our readiness for elections.

In 1998-99, we will renew our strategic plan so that we can capitalize on our experience so far, and then open up new avenues so that we can manage elections even better.

During the next year, Elections Canada will concentrate on making even better use of innovative technology. We will also forge even closer partnerships with other levels of government, other federal departments and with the private sector.

We will address the year 2000 problem, which affects some of our delivery and administrative systems. Our plan will ensure readiness for the new millennium.

The agency will finish building the National Register of Electors, we will complete the redesign of our field registration component and we will expand the automated updates from our administrative partners. Our Electoral Geography project will be completed in cooperation with Statistics Canada, which will then provide electronic electoral district and polling division maps.

In an effort to continually improve the processes and systems that deliver electoral events, we will conduct an extensive business review of the Returning Office. This will help us align technology with our business requirements so that we can produce a more effective, efficient operation. We will also expand our voter education programs through more extensive use of the Internet.

The agency also offers its advice and support on electoral matters. As Parliament reforms electoral legislation, Elections Canada will continue to offer its insights and experience. We will also keep you apprised of our progress with the National Register. In 1998-99, for example, we will develop new policies on sharing data from the register with provincial and municipal electoral agencies.

We are also pleased that our expertise is in demand around the world. In 1998-99, we will continue to offer advice on electoral matters to emerging democracies. Elections Canada will also host two important international conferences: the 4th Conference of the Inter-American Union of Electoral Organizations in July 1998 and the International Conference of Electoral Associations in October 1998.

I have been talking generally about our strategic directions and I have given you some specifics. But I should also point out that, within Elections Canada, we are continually pursuing a spirit of ever greater professionalism, ever greater vision and ever greater achievement. Our aim is to remain second to none in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. Would your colleagues care to say something that this time?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Fine then.

André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): In an electoral year, your total budget is around $230 or $240 million. What kinds of savings are you expecting in the next electoral event? Are you expecting to save $20, $30, $40 or $50 million?

• 1125

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I stated, the savings should total at least $30 million. These projections are based on the use of the permanent National Register of Electors. As for the overall cost of an electoral event in this instance, I will ask Ms. Vézina to tell us what the approximate cost would be, taking into account the $30 million in expected savings.

[English]

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Planning, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): It would be approximately $170 million.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Therefore, the cost of staging an election would fall from $200 million to approximately $170 million, in current dollars and taking into account today's population figures. Obviously, the impact of inflation and population growth must be factored into our calculations. However, we think that this is a realistic projection.

Mr. André Harvey: This figure obviously takes into account the fact that less manual work will have to be done in each riding as a result of the permanent national register.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: This figure includes all of the savings realized under the current system and those resulting from the establishment of the register which we will use for the next national electoral event.

Mr. André Harvey: How much does Elections Canada currently spend each year on international activities aimed at assisting emerging democracies or on logistical support to certain countries?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Regarding our international activities, let me explain to you how they are funded. If a Canadian mission is slated to go abroad, the department that requested the mission, whether CIDA or Foreign Affairs, picks up the tab. Occasionally, the cost may be covered by an international agency or an international organization like NATO or the Organization of American States.

Elections Canada pays the salaries of its employees who travel abroad on these missions. We do not pay their travel , food or lodging expenses. The organization that requested our presence abroad covers these costs. All we pay is the salaries of those employees who participate in these missions.

The best example I can give you is that of the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Gould, who spends much of his time—I would say at least 90 per cent—on foreign missions. We pay the bulk of his salary and do not ask other parties to contribute.

Mr. André Harvey: What proportion of your current $32 million administrative budget is allocated to international activities?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would say approximately $ 150,000. That's all.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As I said, the other departments reimburse Elections Canada for costs incurred. These costs are not, therefore, included in our projections. If they no longer require our services, we cease our activities and that's that.

The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr. Harvey?

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you for coming here for the estimates. I have a couple of questions.

One of your first recommendations was the appointment of returning officers and how that should be done. Are there any costs—for example, in the Port Moody—Coquitlam election, or in the one coming up in Mr. Charest's riding—associated with training the returning officer under the current system? Do you have to send somebody out to train them? How does that work?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The returning officers who are in their positions now were are all trained for the general election that occurred last year. It is only when there are major changes in the legislation that we bring them back for further training, or if the present one resigns and there's need for an appointment of another one. Then we incur additional costs. There is nothing in this budget related to the training of returning officers directly.

Or is there a portion for a statistically determined number, Mr. Lesage?

Mr. Carol Lesage (Director, Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): We estimate a turnover of about 20 returning officers per year, on average. There may be some years where we give very little training. We wait to have a full class in French and a full class in English before we provide the training.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So there's nothing in this budget allocated for training of those officers.

Mr. Carol Lesage: There are some moneys allocated in terms of reviewing our approach to training returning officers.

• 1130

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do you have an idea of how much that is, then?

Mr. Carol Lesage: Yes. I think it's just around $ 200,000.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: With respect to the recommendation you have about the appointment of returning officers and how that's done, you're suggesting that they be appointed for a 10-year term under your proposal, which Parliament has yet to adopt—and I'm not sure they are going to adopt it.

Would your proposal save money or would you still expect the same turnover and the same expenses? I like this recommendation, as you know. We've spoken about this before. Would there be cost savings as well as efficiency savings there?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There would be cost savings. We would have to work out the numbers for you, but I will give you this as an example. At the last round of appointments, where 75% of the returning officers were appointed, my recollection is that we had to spend approximately $1 million to train these people, to bring them from all across Canada to Ottawa. Therefore, any change in that percentage.... And if one looks at natural turnover, 20 returning officers would have turned over that year, 20 as opposed to 270 or 250. That means we would have spent approximately 10% of what we had to spend at the last minute before the last general election.

So in my view, without having looked at the mathematics precisely, there are significant cost savings to be gained by having people who are experienced remain in the job.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Good. I just want to go on record with this. I really do support that recommendation, and we've been through this at this committee, as you know, a couple of times.

I have another question on costs. I received a letter—and I'm one of probably a hundred and some people who received it—the other day saying that there's some anomaly in my return, so I'm going to have to go to Federal Court now along with a hundred and some other people. Is there a cost incurred by your department?

As near as I can tell, the cost is going to be on our shoulders. We're going to have to find a lawyer and we're going to have to go to court. It's probably going to cost somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I think you recommended something that could fix that little problem. Those are problems that we shouldn't be going to court over, and I think you've made a recommendation along those lines. Are there any costs incurred by your department when we go back to court over this?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The short answer is no. The costs are borne by the candidates who have to seek the leave from the court.

And the court is a regular court. I should mention that. It's not necessarily the Federal Court, but I'm sure your people are aware of that, and when they get in touch with us, we will advise them.

Whatever costs there would be are things related to the fact that it's taking some staff time to advise people who call up, but this is nothing really. There's no direct cost attributable to Elections Canada relating to this problem.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just wanted to share the misery, but I guess I can't share it with you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My last question is about the Y2K problem. We've been asking everyone about it and I think it's now starting to click with everyone that this is a huge problem. In your case, of course, this is a pretty critical problem, because you never know when there might be an election, a by-election or whatever. What are you doing specifically to look after that? And how much is it going to cost your department to look after that conversion bill for Y2K compliance?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think it's important to keep in mind that until the year 2000 there can be as many by-elections as one can want and as many general elections and referendums as one can want. The year 2000 problem is not there yet.

The major application for which Elections Canada is concerned really relates to the system we now have in place, which is called “ECAPLE” and is our system in the field to update the lists when there's an election. But we're having to change that system anyway, and we will have finalized that before the year 2000 and tested it so that it is functional, because that is in our plans. That main problem is under control and we know that.

• 1135

We started to look at the year 2000 problem approximately one year back, to my recollection. We've hired an expert who is handling just this field as one of our employees until the problem is solved, which will be around the year 2000.

We bought other applications that you get off the shelf, software that you buy off the shelf, for a whole slew of things, for financial management and others. Of course that is all being updated by the private sector as well. We also have some other applications which would all be solved by the year 2000.

We're not feeling that there's any problem with respect to us and this is not a way of signalling to you that we're concerned about anything. It's quite the opposite. If ever there is a problem, I will let this committee know.

In terms of the moneys, there is no money attributed in the budget at this time, except for the salary of this person. My personal estimate is that it will cost us approximately $2 million to $3 million to solve this issue, not taking into account the system we have to rewrite anyway to replace ECAPLE. I'm not including that in there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I have a long list, so I'm going to try to intervene to keep the thing moving.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral and then Mr. Stéphane Dion.

[English]

and then John Richardson, Carolyn Parrish, and Ken Epp.

[Translation]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Stéphane Dion!

The Chairman: My mind shuts down when I speak French.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I should ask you to apologize, Mr. Chairman. I take offence with what you said.

The Chairman: Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You stated in the course of your presentation that one of your agency's main objectives was to remove barriers to participation as much as possible. By this I take it you mean barriers to "extra" participation.

Shortly thereafter, you spoke about developing new policies for sharing data with the various levels of government. I was a member of this committee in the last parliament and I know that we discussed at length the many problems and constraints that exist and that seem insurmountable.

Therefore, I would like you to tell us how you envision the sharing of data and what you see as being new or different. I would imagine that the centerpiece of this initiative is the drafting of the register of electors. We could have the best system going, but if the electoral list does not reflect the true state of the electorate, that we've wasted our time. That's why I would like to hear your views on the subject.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Let me start by briefly telling you about the agreements that we have already concluded with the provinces and those that have yet to be signed.

Basically, only a few agreements remain to be formalized in writing. We have already reached a verbal agreement with all of the provinces. As far as Manitoba is concerned, we have even received some preliminary data which lets us know the programs we are developing are sound. We expect an agreement to be signed at any time; we have received word that this will happen very shortly.

We are also in the process of finalizing an agreement with Alberta. One of my assistant directors just returned from these two provinces last week.

Finally, with respect to the Yukon, we have received assurances from the office of the deputy minister that as far as driving licenses are concerned, our request does not pose a problem. It's more a question of taking the time to learn about how things are done in the Yukon.

Therefore, as far as agreements are concerned, everything is going very well. We concluded agreements with Quebec and Ontario some time ago and everything is proceeding smoothly with the other provinces.

As for the future, I met with the mayors of some of Canada's large cities at a conference in Toronto last week. They were extremely pleased to hear of the progress that has been made and to learn that the register was now available.

• 1140

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My whip is distracting me, but for a good reason.

How long does it take before data on new Canadian citizens is shared with other levels of government? As MPs, we receive that information at our constituency offices. While I personally get that information, I have no way of knowing if these persons became citizens six months, three months or three days ago. I have no way of knowing that and I don't believe it's my job to forward this information to the government of Quebec, for instance. What method is currently used to share information and what time frame are we talking about here?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to new citizens, we use a two-pronged approach. First of all, Citizenship and Immigration Canada try to catch up on this information, given that the system was not in place at the time. Subsequently, they share their data with Elections Canada.

To the best of my recollection, Elections Canada gathers data on a quarterly basis, which leads me to believe that the longest we are talking about here is three months. By then, we know who these new citizens are and who has agreed—and remember they must agree— to have his name added to the national register.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: One last question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I swear it's the last one.

Earlier, I talked about "extra" participation. Allow me to elaborate. Do you have any way of preventing names from appearing twice in the register? This may happen not necessarily because someone was acting in bad faith, but because some students or workers move or travel from city to city or even from province to province. How successful have you been in addressing this problem? It's a good question, wouldn't you say?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As for the exact number, I should be able to give you that in writing. However, we have taken some special measures. The software programs developed for us by SAIC will help us to control and eliminate duplicate names to ensure that there is only one voter with the same name and birthdate. There may be cases where voters have the same name, but we will have to check to ensure that everything is an order. There is no question of taking anyone's fingerprints.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Not to mention the fact that we don't know the person's sex.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We include that information.

The Chairman: In the absence of Stéphane Dion, we will now hear from Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As we used to say, you take what you can get. Therefore, if you can't have Stéphane Dion, you'll have to settle for Stéphane Bergeron. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can see that you hold me in very high esteem, given your introduction. What more can I say?

All kidding aside, on reading through the lines, I seemed to sense in these estimates a desire on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to eventually bring in electronic voting. Given the advances in information technology at the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, that seems to be the direction in which we are heading.

Several questions come to mind. Could you comment further on your ultimate aim of bringing in electronic voting? I have a series of questions for you and I hope your answers will give us an idea of what lies ahead for voters.

First of all, how much would it cost to implement a system of electronic voting? What would be the resulting savings?

Secondly, since election campaigns have tended to become shorter over the years, shouldn't you be concerned that staff hired for the election blitz might not be up on the technologies associated with electronic voting? Accordingly, isn't it possible that efficiency may suffer because staff is not familiar with these new tools?

• 1145

What impact is electronic voting likely to have on voter participation, given that voting will become a more technical exercise? I don't quite know how you imagine electronic voting is going to work. Will citizens still have to go out to cast their vote? In terms of participation, how do you see this process unfolding?

My third and final question is this: how do you plan to ensure the confidentiality of electronic voting, given the nature of information technologies?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, my first answer should please you. It is you, the members of Parliament and representatives of the people, who will decide whether or not to institute electronic voting, not the Chief Electoral Officer.

The Chief Electoral Officer can set the wheels in motion for a study and I've already done this. The committee has been brought up to speed. We are awaiting a final report any day now. Once the report is finalized, we will table it to the committee for your future consideration.

I've read the preliminary report and all that remains is to consult with some parliamentarians, aside from this committee, because ultimately, you will have the final word on this. This consultation is set to take place in early May.

Once the Public Policy Forum has seen to this final consultation on our behalf, the report will be tabled to your committee. I can, however, assure you of one thing, since I've read the preliminary report. The cost issue is broadly discussed, as is the question of technology and what can be accomplished using technology. Furthermore, there are no plans to do away with current voting methods and to replace them all at once with electronic voting. Rather the report will recommend that electronic voting be phased in. However, it will be up to you to decide how you want to proceed and which system you want to use.

Moreover, I was pleased to see that the report explains very clearly the limitations of electronic voting. Even though we may think the necessary technology exists, we have to understand that electronic voting has its shortcomings and these will be identified for you. There is absolutely no question of our completely overhauling the system. Thank you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, if I understand you correctly, my questions are very good ones, but they are somewhat premature.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It would be a good idea to reserve these questions and put them to us again when we table the report.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine then.

[English]

The Chairman: John Richardson and Carolyn Parrish, Ken Epp, Randy White, and Marlene Catterall.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Welcome to the committee, Mr. Kingsley.

I know you have stepped out on a plan to automate as much as possible to maintain the fast pace of the electronic age. There are a couple of things on page 15 that come to light for me, and I'd like to pick them out.

In the estimate documents you indicate that Elections Canada operates to greater levels of efficiency by containment of costs in response to your clients the stakeholders. Could you briefly explain how you're meeting the challenges in this area?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think there are two examples that really come to mind. One of them, of course, is the national register of electors. It's very hard to come out with a better example when one is talking about a savings of $30 million. And as we were able to point out to Mr. Harvey, these are real savings that absorb the $5 million operating cost.

The second example is in the area of electoral geography. We are at the present time developing, as I've mentioned before, an electronic database whereby every address in Canada will be geo-referenced and it will be possible to produce maps electronically. I don't have an order of magnitude at this time, but this will significantly impact upon the costs associated with mapping at Elections Canada and all of the aspects of mapping.

We're also seeing, in terms of reports that we used to produce by print.... The report dealing with the results poll by poll we now put out on CD-ROM instead. The reports we put out on the financing aspects of the legislation we now put out to universities and to you on CD-ROM, as opposed to printing a full text, 6,000 copies. A CD-ROM costs us a dollar.

• 1150

We're realizing economies of scale on all of these activities. These are the ones that pop into my mind off the top.

Mr. John Richardson: To continue on this, I'd like to mention that you've established the returning office technology centre that will plan and develop.... You're developing this technology for the returning office in each riding to plan, develop, implement and support the fundamental technology environment that will be used in the returning office. In other words, it's all blended into the whole system. It's systematic from the ground up. Could you give us a little insight into that, please?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With the establishment of the national register of electors, we need to have instantaneous communications from coast to coast between each returning office and Elections Canada. We also need that because of the fact that we have established an election management system under which we know what's going on in the returning offices. The information is fed to us.

At the last election that system was established in a fully functional way for the first time, so when management at head office wants to find out what's happening across Canada, we have it on a monitor. It's all computerized and the information flows all the time, so we have instantaneous information. For example, if in your riding we're expecting say 1,000 revisions by a certain date and we only have 200, we know there's a problem and we send information out.

We're monitoring the situation on all sorts of indicators that are pertinent to electoral management. As well, with respect to the national register of electors, I was mentioning earlier we have to rewrite the software to replace ECAPLE. We are developing a system by which if a returning office finds out that a citizen who has moved into the riding used to be in another riding, that person's name can be removed from that other riding immediately, or during the course of that day, so the other returning office no longer has a name on its list of someone who has moved. In other words, the system will be making sure that lists are fully up to date for you, come advance polling day and polling day itself.

This is what we're doing. As well, there are all sorts of systems to handle the pay aspects of all the workers. All of this is computerized. We want to be able to get away from all the paperwork for all these people, except for the cheque. This is what we're doing in the automation of returning offices.

Mr. John Richardson: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, then Ken Epp, then Randy White and Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

Welcome. I always said you'd get an Order of Canada if you managed to get a permanent voters list.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Unfortunately, I can't bestow that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But it's so nice.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: When you talked about saving $22 million in the actual electoral period, has a lot of that to do with a shorter election period, or were there other reasons for it?

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes, some of that is related to the shortening of the calendar. That was a savings we had anticipated during the election. But there were additional savings due to what we call the back-to-back events, the enumeration and election happening one after the other. It saved some money in terms of office leases and other overhead for the returning offices. There was a significant amount of savings there.

There was approximately $10 million saved in revision, over what we had anticipated, due to the fact that we had newer lists. In our business case that we had prepared to support the register, we were looking at a six-month-old list, when in fact we had just finished enumeration so the lists were newer and therefore revision costs were down.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Did you have any outstanding problems with the shorter election period?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Frankly, nothing major.

There was one issue that arose during the enumeration. Because for the first time we were establishing the connection between head office and each one of the 301 returning offices for computer information on-line—what the experts call the connectivity—it created an issue that required a lot of effort on our part to get going. Luckily, the problem was solved in the main by the time the election rolled around. But it left us with a less than adequate system, I found, during the enumeration process to really find out and trace what was happening.

• 1155

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I have two brief ones. On the updates to the list, are you getting a lot of resistance? What percentage of people don't want to go on an electoral list in the updating process?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In terms of people who have opted out of the system, the number is hovering at around 500. That's all.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's the total for the whole country?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The number of people who have written to the Chief Electoral Officer or my office to ask to be removed is less than 550, to my recollection.

There are really two types of sources for data. Take a driver's licence, for example. At that stage, all the changes are forwarded to us. There is no yes, I want to, or no, I don't want to. On the income tax form, there is the yes, I want to, and no, I don't want to. We're expecting the results of that to find out what the take-up rate is by the end of this month. We had requested it earlier, but there were problems in obtaining it earlier. One of the things I would like to do is to share that with you as soon as I get it.

I can tell you one thing: we had predicted match rates from motor vehicle changes, and so on and so forth, such that 70% would match the right person at the right address. We're averaging a 15% better score, so the list will be that much more accurate.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: This is my last question. I hate to be critical, because I am a big fan of your department, but the maps stunk. They were the worst maps I have ever seen in my life. I would like to know if you are getting a new map drawer for the next election. What happened? They were horrible.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: First, I did eat crow about this the last time I was here. Because we're sensitive to the comments that were made—they are right—we are rebasing the maps with all the data that is up to date with Statistics Canada. The two of us have partnered on this. It's not saving a lot of money, just some money, but we are going to get a much better product.

What I would like to do is that once we have this, I would like to show it to you. I'll show you a typical product. You choose the writing and we'll put it up on the screen. You tell us if that's what you think is adequate or not. I would like to be consulting this committee on this type of stuff.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Good.

The Chairman: I don't very often comment here, but you mentioned GIS in the estimates. It's covered, and I know you're into it. GIS is now something that's at the first and second year undergraduate level in the universities. By the way, it's not in computer studies, but in a whole range of departments. It seems to me that it shouldn't be expensive or difficult to produce the maps. The technology and the software are already there.

Ken Epp, Randy White, and Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to say one thing on maps. It wasn't on my list, but I'm going to just say this. The returning officer in my riding said that he wished he simply had the authority to produce the maps and send them to you, instead of having it the other way around. This is in terms of the local ridings and the polls. He had to end up doing them himself. It would be a possibility.

That's just a comment; I don't want your response.

This is what I want your response on. We are talking about numbers here. We are talking about estimates. I have a contradictory sense here, because I don't know whether your budget is going up or down. I want to know this. In your meeting with this committee last year, you said that the administrative costs were $3.2 million and the statutory forecast was $20.6 million, for a total of $23.8 million. That was in 1996-97. Then you said that additional projected statutory expenditures of some $20.7 million are included in the supplementary estimates.

If you have $23.8 million, plus an additional $ 20.7 million, that would mean a total of $44.5 million. This year, I don't see anything about an additional supplementary, but your requirements are $ 32.3 million. I want to know if this is an increase from $ 23.8 million to $32.3 million. My impression is that's what it is. And what happened to the additional supplementary that you had last year?

• 1200

Ms. Janice Vézina: If I may, Mr. Chair, the increase between 1997 main estimates and 1998 main estimates primarily concerns the register of electors, which is $7.7 million in the development phase, and part of the maintenance is included in that. As well, the other difference is the clean-up of the general election, which is worth about $ 750,000. So those are the two primary areas to account for the difference between the numbers you've given.

Mr. Ken Epp: But there is an increase, apparently, of $9 million altogether.

Ms. Janice Vézina: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: I noticed also in your staffing that you have a considerable increase in the number of full-time-equivalent staff. I'd like to know just exactly what it is that precipitates that need.

Ms. Janice Vézina: A number of projects are being undertaken, as explained in the estimates. The executive committee has approved a number of temporary people for this fiscal year to work on specific projects, one of which is GIS, which is in the geography section. There are quite a few individuals there. There are about 35 people out of the number you're seeing who are focused on the automation of the cartography.

Mr. Ken Epp: So this automation that saves us all this money is costing us about 40% more now than what we had last year. Are you projecting for the long term that this will continue, or is that a one-time cost and we will see this budget being reduced again in the future?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I think you'll see the budget go down. One thing we have to take into account, though, is the $5-million maintenance cost of maintaining the register between events. So that will augment our base amount, which was about $23 million. That money will be recovered at the next event through savings of using the register in the next general election. So yes, we're spending slightly more each year between events, but when we have an election or referendum, we'll be recouping that amount and more.

Mr. Ken Epp: The cost of enumeration on your special enumeration was $72 million. That was your final enumeration. Yet the budget calls for only about $ 30 million for enumerations. How do you explain that substantial difference?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Which budget are you referring to at $30 million?

Mr. Ken Epp: I read it here somewhere in this blue book that enumerations were $30 million. Well, no. It's $29 million. It's the expenses of elections. It was, in the previous year, $ 20.6 million, and now it's up to $29 million. Your expenses of elections, I presume, are by-elections, maintaining lists, or whatever. That's quite an increase, and I'd like to know just exactly where that comes from.

Ms. Janice Vézina: You mean the difference between the $20 million and the $29 million? It's primarily due to the actual systems development of the register of electors. That amount was taken into account when the business case was prepared for the register, and it will be recovered at future events.

Mr. Ken Epp: So I will be hoping to get re-elected, Mr. Chairman, so that as I continue in this committee year after year, I will watch to see that this goes down when we become efficient with these things on stream. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks, Ken. Randy White and Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Ken's an optimist, of course.

Mr. Kingsley, I'm looking on page 19 of supplementary information at table 2.2, which is details of FTE requirements. I'm just wondering whether, on interim periods between elections when you downsize and lay off and so on, you do that proportionately. For instance, I noticed that fewer of those who are making over $ 80,000 were removed than employees making $ 30,000 to $ 50,000, for instance.

• 1205

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I should mention that when there is an election.... Out of that number of 234 there are only approximately 60 who are full-time employees, what we call indeterminate appointments. The rest are all people with a term attached to their appointment. This number of 234 more than doubles when there's a general election, because we need to staff up at head office. When the election is finished, we reduce back to 234.

With respect to the reduction and the fact that it is not proportional, one must remember that with the establishment of the national register, we have a requirement for additional people in management who have technical, expert knowledge in computers. That is why there's a greater number of them in the $ 80,000 bracket who will be retained on a permanent basis.

Mr. Randy White: What is the ratio of management to employees?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't have that at the tip of my fingers, but I can come back to you with that.

Mr. Randy White: Would you please?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: I'd like to know if you have any outstanding current liabilities from the election, like accounts payable for instance, or payment in particular of facilities that were used by returning officers. Do you still owe money on those issues?

Ms. Janice Vézina: I'm unaware that there are any accounts like that outstanding from the election.

Mr. Randy White: I'm aware of one, and I was just wondering if there are others. Are there disputes perhaps between the owner of the facilities and those people renting?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We're not aware of it, but if there is one, we'd be more than happy to look at it. What we're trying to say is that from our perspective, all of the accounts that were submitted by returning officers have been processed for payment.

Mr. Randy White: They were all processed?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: That could be the case with the one I was aware of.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We'd be happy to look at any one in detail.

Mr. Randy White: I wonder if you could tell me if it's permissible for a federal party to lay off employees and have those laid off workers work in a provincial election while drawing UI at the same time. In other words, a federal party in this House lays its employees off, they draw UI, and those employees go and work on a provincial election.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): This is something I would have to look into. That would be a concern for the HRDC department and I would have to get in touch with them and seek their advice.

Mr. Randy White: Could you do that and get back to me on that? Would that be possible? Thank you.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have one question on the permanent electors list. As you probably remember from previous questioning, I'm quite concerned about those people who might consistently drop off the electoral list for a whole variety of reasons.

What are you doing to monitor how complete your lists are staying? For instance—and this is almost right down to the poll-by-poll level—if we suddenly have 20, 30, or 50 fewer voters, is there any process of matching addresses to make sure those addresses and the voters at those addresses continue to be on the list, even if the name has changed? How are you monitoring that?

I'm particularly interested in that in terms of what you found out during the study that was done last year of electoral behaviour and the demographics of those who are less likely to participate in an election. It would seem to me those are also the groups that are most likely to drop off the list and not bother responding for one reason or another.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, because we've mentioned the need to get together with the committee and share everything about the register, I wonder if it would be acceptable that we answer in full detail at that time rather than now. I really don't know the answer to a lot of the questions you've raised today, but I would like the committee to know everything with respect to the register, such as what our success rate is on matching, les doublants, removal of the people who are deceased, how we trace 18-year-olds, new 18-year-olds, and so on and so forth.

• 1210

I would very much want the committee to know everything about this. I would like to organize a special presentation to the committee so you can go into depth on this.

The Chairman: At the moment, of course, we're dealing with the estimates, so, Marlene, if there's something particular now....

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just particularly wanted to know if there are extra costs involved in that kind of tracking. Frankly, I hope they're included in these estimates.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes. Everything related to the register is built into the $5 million maintenance and into the $30 million net savings, which reabsorbs the $5 million.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have one final comment. It's not a question. For next election I need a map of my riding—now—with street names on it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We will be voting on that.

[English]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Now?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Now.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Lesage, now...

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I have a question concerning the register. I realize that there will be another meeting, but since I may not be there, I would appreciate an answer to the following question. When a person indicates on his income tax return that he does not want his name to appear in the national register, will you do any kind of follow- up, particularly in cases where the return was prepared by an accountant or in other words, by a third party? Are you planning to check to see whether in fact the person did not want his name to appear in the register?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will take that question under advisement and give you an answer at the next meeting.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm confident that the chair of the committee will follow up on this.

The Chairman: Thank you, Marlene.

[English]

Colleagues, that exhausts my list. Is the committee ready for the question? You have the agenda before you.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I'm not exactly sure of the process here, but because we disagree with the existing appointment process for returning officers and because there are moneys allocated in this budget to perpetuate that flawed process, I move, seconded by the member from Langley—Abbotsford, that we reduce the amount in the estimates by $200,000.

(Motion negatived)

A voice: It's a good motion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's a good motion.

The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question. Shall vote 20 under Privy Council carry?

PRIVY COUNCIL

Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Vote 20-Program Expenditures $2,614,000

(Vote 20 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall I report vote 20 to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Colleagues, before I thank our guests, I want to thank you for your questions. I think it was a very productive session and I would just like to read out the length of time, not by name, that each member had in order to give some indication of the fairness of the proceedings: one minute, three seconds; two minutes, forty-three seconds; four minutes, two seconds; five minutes, fifty seconds; four minutes, forty-seven seconds; four minutes, fifty-eight seconds; four minutes, fifty-three seconds; six minutes, point zero three seconds; and where I really let you all down, seven minutes, fifty-six seconds.

Mr. Randy White: Well now, who did that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Who did that?

Mr. Randy White: The number seven has you paranoid there, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an announcement, with your permission. My text is prepared in French.

[Translation]

When representatives of the various political parties in the House of Commons appeared before us on March 18 last, many of them stressed the need for more open lines of communication between themselves and Elections Canada. I also believe that establishing a more formal mechanism for ensuring communications between Elections Canada and registered political parties can only be beneficial to everyone.

Therefore, I am pleased to inform you that I intend to recommend to political parties the creation of an advisory committee to be composed of representatives of all registered political parties. This committee, which I will chair, will serve as a unique forum in which to discuss how our activities impact parties and their candidates. A proposal to this effect will be forwarded to the parties in the coming weeks.

• 1215

[English]

I should also add that I view this as separate from the need for input from members of Parliament. I am more than open to suggestions on how to have more advice on the work we do at Elections Canada and on the way things shape up.

There would be party representation through this advisory committee and MPs through this committee. It's my way of saying that I don't think the parties always represent the points of view of MPs, and I think it's necessary for me to continue to link directly with members of Parliament.

The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, I thank you for that short statement. I was going to say, though, that these hearings, which were about your estimates rather than the Canada Elections Act, turned out, with our questions and answers today, to be very useful for our work on the Canada Elections Act, our ongoing work.

And I would like to say to you that we intend to have a steering committee meeting next Tuesday. As you know, on our rough calendar it's suggested that you appear with us on the Elections Canada matter, which you were just referring to, a week Thursday. Let me advise you that following the steering committee meeting, we may well suggest that our next meeting be on a different date. If you'll just keep that in mind, we're going to meet next Tuesday to discuss our strategy for dealing with the Canada Elections Act.

The matter you just addressed, I guess, is the revival of the so-called ad hoc committee that existed some years ago.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The so-called ad hoc committee is now an advisory committee, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Yes. It's called something else.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: —and instead of being chaired by the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, it will be chaired by me.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask Mr. Kingsley when I can expect an answer to those two questions.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will do that in writing directly to you and to the other members of the committee hopefully within the week.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, on your behalf, I would like to thank Mr. Kingsley and his colleagues, Carol Lesage, Jacques Girard, and Janice Vézina. We really appreciate you taking the time to be here.

Our next meeting is Thursday, April 30, at 11 o'clock, in this room, when we will be considering the main estimates and plans and priorities of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the House.

Thank you. We're adjourned.