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]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will begin. We're here, as you know, with respect to our mandate under Standing Order 103(a)(iv), consideration of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, on the 36th general election referred to the committee pursuant to Standing Order 32(5).

Before we begin—I hope our guests will be patient with us—I would like to take this opportunity to go through a few things while we are all here, even though I know we could do this under other business. There is one procedural item I'll come to in a moment. While we're all together, I'd like to get a handle on the work in progress and the schedule we face next week, the following weeks, and after the Christmas break.

It is my understanding that the subcommittee on the House schedule has been meeting and will report on December 2. It's my understanding the same thing applies to the subcommittee on members' services. We're aiming for it to report at the first meeting of December. Marie confirms that's correct.

With regard to the subcommittee on private members' business, I know it has ongoing business, but on the matter of procedure for Senate private members' bills, as you will see under item four, we're suggesting we receive a report from that subcommittee next Tuesday.

On the briefing on the business of supply, colleagues will recall it's business left over from the last Parliament. It has a scheduled date of December 4. Mrs. Catterall will be briefing us and leading the discussion on the business of supply. Are we on track here? This is the sort of thing we're doing.

Just so you know, I've had a meeting with Senator Shirley Maheu on the matter of standing orders for joint committees. We don't have a subcommittee on this, you'll be relieved to hear, but it's an ongoing matter. The joint committees appear to be particularly important in this Parliament.

I met with Senator Maheu, and the suggestion is our researcher will produce a chart showing the standing orders in the House, the rules of the Senate, and suggested changes and adjustments that were developed by an informal group of this committee in the last Parliament. I think some correspondence has already gone out on this.

The suggestion is that the chart and some related material will be discussed here in the full committee, not in the subcommittee, and in our equivalent committee in the Senate. Then we will come to some conclusion. The suggestion is that this be handled soon. I will leave it hanging like that and will accept any guidance you have to offer. The point is we will fit it in as soon as we can. The parties are comfortable with that.

The matter of the review of the standing orders was raised by Mr. White, Mr. Caccia, and a number of other people who have corresponded with us on it. A letter is going to the House leaders. You will recall we discussed this at the last meeting.

We will have a general committee discussion before Christmas based on any response the House leaders have to our letter. After Christmas, in February likely, there will be a roundtable discussion with experts and others to deal with this. This roundtable discussion will likely not be a normal meeting of the committee but will be some other meeting, perhaps in the evenings, that type of thing.

• 1115

Am I on track with that, too?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay.

The matter of electronic voting, which we discussed at our meeting, you'll see under item 4. The report on that matter will be next Thursday, November 27. The Clerk of the House has been making inquiries and has material for us on that.

So we have the private members' business topic for Tuesday and electronic voting for Thursday.

Before we get to the procedural matter, just so you know, I've had correspondence back from the commission on member services indicating that they received our letter on that matter. They say they are completely secure and are in fact not at fault that information about our correspondence went into the public domain.

Second, I received a letter, one that all chairs of standing committees received, on the matter of the year 2000 computer change. All standing committees have been asked to give some thought to this matter. I want to assure you that we are giving some thought to it.

I believe Mr. Kilger has a motion.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take up any more of our witnesses' time.

I trust there have been deliberations and consultations with the other parties regarding this motion in terms of the change of the meetings schedule of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. If there hasn't been, then I'll withhold the motion. I do it trusting that there have been deliberations.

[Translation]

I want to make sure that all the parties were consulted about the changes made to the meeting schedule for the Canadian Heritage Committee

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I have no reason to believe that that is not the case, but I would perhaps prefer that we adopt this motion, as scheduled in today's agenda, a little bit later on today so that we can check this out. We could do this after Mr. Kingsley's presentation.

An honourable member: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, we welcome you and your staff. We're in your hands.

Perhaps you would introduce your colleagues and proceed with the presentation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to members of the committee. It's a pleasure to meet again those members I've met before and to meet for the first time new members of the committee.

It is with great pleasure that I accept the committee's invitation to meet with you today for the first time in the Thirty-Sixth Parliament to discuss the electoral process as well as its administration and reform.

Before I begin to comply with your request, Mr.Chairman, I would like to introduce the officials accompanying me today: Mrs. Janice Vézina, director of election financing; Mr. Jacques Girard, director of legal services and registrar of political parties; and Mrs. Diane Bruyère, assistant director of operations.

When it comes time to raise questions with us, I will feel free to call upon them, and I would ask you to feel free to do the same. It's an open shop. So we're more in your hands than you are in ours.

My report on the 36th general election was submitted to Speaker of the House of Commons on August 22 of this year, in accordance with section 195 of the Canada Elections Act. The report was tabled in the House on September 24, 1997, at which time it was deemed to be permanently referred to this committee. The report was made public as well at a press conference I held on October 15, 1997. It provides a comprehensive overview of the administration of my office since the publication of the last report, in particular of the administration of the June 1997 general election and the enumeration that preceded it.

I would like to take the opportunity today to share with you my views on the electoral reform issues that your committee may wish to pursue as well.

First, let me comment briefly on the expenditures associated with the enumeration of April of this year and the subsequent election in June. Not only did we realize the cost savings put forward in the business case for the register of electors—about which many members of this committee are aware—which was shared by this committee, but we also achieved a further cost avoidance of some $20 million in comparison with our forecasts for the enumeration and election combined.

The cost of the enumeration was $74 million, $5 million lower than the original estimate of $79.3 million. The original forecast for the cost of the election was $152 million. Instead, the cost will be $136 million. The total of the two combined was $210 million, compared to the $231 million that was projected based on both the cost of the 1993 general election and the register of electors business case.

• 1120

Our preliminary analysis indicates that the $20 million saving is attributable mainly to three factors: number one, the purchase and use of the Alberta and P.E.I. provincial lists of electors, which pre-empted the door-to-door enumeration in those two provinces; number two, the lower costs relating to back-to-back events; and number three, the lower cost of revision during the election. In the business case, we had utilized a six-month-old list as the basis of our cost projections.

The enumeration formed the basis of the national register of electors. The estimated development costs of the national register of electors remains at $13.3 million and the annual cost of maintaining the register remains at $5 million.

The register was used to produce preliminary lists of electors for the 36th general election. Through the use of the register in the future, Elections Canada will reduce voter registration costs by approximately $30 million for each of the next two general elections. This amount includes amortizing the $5 million annual costs for maintaining the register between elections, as I mentioned above.

I would also like to take a moment to provide you with an update on our progress in forging partnerships with our provincial counterparts for the acquisition of data to update the register of electors.

Elections Canada has completed agreements with the motor vehicle registrars in six provinces and one territory. They are listed there: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. In addition, agreements have been finalized between my office and the vital statistics registrars in seven provinces and one territory, the same as above and including British Columbia this time.

Within days, an additional agreement will be completed with Alberta registries for the acquisition of data from both vital statistics and driver's licence registries. And I have minister Iris Evans' word on that.

Contrary to certain reports, Elections Canada did not purchase an electoral list from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec either before the election in June or after the election in June. The federal enumeration was conducted in Quebec, as you know, during April, as was forecast.

Since then, however, my office has completed a data acquisition agreement with Quebec so that we can update our register of electors with data concerning moves, people who attain the age of 18, and deaths, effectively on the basis as Quebec's permanent list.

So to the numbers I've given you add one on both counts, because Quebec has signed and it's all finalized.

Quebec updates its lists, by the way, on the basis of information from electors as well as from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec. We are also presently working with the remaining provincial data suppliers—that is to say, the motor vehicles and vital statistics registrars in Manitoba and the Yukon and the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia—and are expecting to sign agreements during December of this year.

Agreements were also finalized in the early spring of this year with our federal data suppliers—that is to say, Revenue Canada as well as Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

[Translation]

Let me now talk to electoral reform. During the 1990s, amendments have been made to improve the accessibility and voter-friendliness of the voting process; on the reimbursement of political parties' election expenses; and on the establishment of the national register of electors, the minimum 36-day electoral period, and the staggered voting hours. Bill C-69, dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, died on the Order Paper.

In this respect, one of the recommendations in my most recent report is that parliamentarians reconsider the proposal, from Bill C-69, that the electoral boundaries be revised every five years instead of every ten—as at present.

• 1125

The 1996 report, Strengthening the Foundation, contained a certain number of recommendations. The 1997 report builds on and adds to them. As both these reports and this overview suggest, a great deal of electoral reform has been accomplished in recent years. Nevertheless, it is my view that much remains to be done.

From my perspective, the following are the priority issues this committee may wish to address during the 36th Parliament.

There are a number of issues related to election financing. The recommendations are based upon the principles of participation, fairness, and transparency, which form the foundation of Canada's current approach to election financing.

If a level playing field is to be maintained, it will also need to be applied to third party electoral participants.

The current situation is anomalous because third parties are free to spend as they wish, while the activities of registered political parties and candidates are governed by the Act. If this situation is not addressed, it could eventually erode the financial foundation of the electoral system.

In addition to registration of third parties and disclosure of their revenue sources, they could be subject to spending limits derived from the average amounts spent on advertizing by candidates or political parties.

This approach acknowledges the right of members of the public to participate in the electoral process through the channel they prefer. This approach would be consistent with the recent unanimous judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Robert Libman case. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the promotion of fairness, through the limitation of third party expenditures, is a valid legislative objective.

As noted in the 1996 report Strengthening the Foundation, a number of disclosures from electoral participants are lacking. As an example, the Act currently does little more than acknowledge the existence of local associations and contains no provisions respecting trust funds or leadership contests.

A minimalist approach for dealing with these issues is proposed: the appointment of a registered agent would be required whenever financial transactions take place. These agents would also be responsible for the submission of audited financial returns. This requirement would apply to local associations, central party campaigns and election trust funds.

The definition of election expenses in the Canada Elections Act excludes a number of important campaign-related expenditures such as public opinion polling. These exclusions impede the goal of transparency. As a result, a more inclusive definition was proposed in the 1996 Annex.

Also in 1996, a new approach to the reimbursement of political party and candidate election expenses was proposed. It was recommended that the reimbursement of election expenses for both parties and candidates be the same amount per vote, rather than the current formula, where the percentage varies from 23.5 to 50% depending on whether or not a party or a candidate is involved.

I also recommend that the appointment of returning officers be a responsibility of my office to be fulfilled by open competition. Legislation in certain Canadian provinces provides for the returning officers to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer. The current method of appointment is also perceived to be at odds with Canada's international reputation for the quality of its democracy and the independence of its election officials.

The decriminalization of the enforcement process for administrative shortcomings is also included for consideration.

The report of the broadcasting arbitrator, Mr. Peter Grant, is appended to my report; it also contains recommendations with respect to the allocation of air time.

• 1130

The committee may wish to revisit other elements of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. These other elements are not automatically covered by all of the recommendations that I have proposed.

In closing, I wish to assure you that we at Elections Canada are ready and willing to assist you in your deliberations.

I would also like to extend an invitation to the members of the committee to visit Elections Canada, Mr. Chairman, and familiarize themselves with our systems and projects which we deal with on a daily basis.

I would like to thank you and all the members of the committee. My colleagues and I welcome your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. Do your colleagues have anything that they wish to add?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I do not believe so.

The Chairman: Very well.

Stéphane Bergeron and Ken Epp.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First of all, I would like to welcome you formally to the committee. I understand that this initial visit during this 36th Parliament is a prelude to some rewarding work to be accomplished by this committee and the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. We are pleased to have an opportunity to work together over the next few months.

I would like some clarification with respect to one of the aspects you raised during your presentation. You said that it was recommended that the reimbursement for both parties and candidates be the same amount per vote. This sentence is a little bit unclear to me and I'm not sure that I understand what it means.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With the current formula, as you know, a political party that meets the requirements is reimbursed 22.5% of allowed expenses, whereas a candidate is reimbursed 50% of his expenses providing he has passed the test and obtained 15% of the votes.

Instead of reimbursing on a percentage basis, we are recommending that we reimburse candidates and parties who have reached the same thresholds in accordance with a preestablished amount, namely, according to the number of votes obtained by the party through its candidates. The candidates will be reimbursed the same amount for every vote that they obtain in their riding.

In the recommendation contained in the report, we explain this mathematical formula to a certain extent. Obviously, you will quickly understand that in order to refund the same amount to both the parties and the candidates, the reimbursements for parties will increase whereas those for the candidates will be reduced a little bit.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a substantive question. When you recommend that parliamentarians reconsider the proposal of Bill C-69 that the electoral boundaries be revised every five years instead of every ten years as is currently the case, that triggers some questions. When I was working at the National Assembly, I participated in the electoral boundary review process in Quebec. The law was amended in Quebec so that the electoral ridings, which used to be revised at each general election, were set for ten years. The people who were elected could thus identify with their community, their riding, etc. on a much longer term, rather than having to change ridings, or communities, every four or five years.

Consequently, I'm a bit surprised that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is recommending something that is somewhat against—and I'm not saying that this is a bad thing—the logic espoused by the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer, who chose to conduct a review every ten years instead of at every election, whereas here you are suggesting that we do this every five years instead of every ten.

• 1135

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that Bill C-69 came about primarily because of the members' desire to limit the number of seats in the House of Commons.

In addition, we had identified a very major problem: in some provinces in Canada, some ridings contained four times more voters than the average riding, which resulted to some extent in under-representation. To prevent this from happening in a country such as ours, where there is a great deal of immigration as well as internal migration, particularly within certain provinces, the committee had made some recommendations that Parliament adopted so that the review process within provinces would take place every five years. Seats would not be redistributed amongst the provinces every five years, this would occur only every ten years, in accordance with the current formula prescribed in the Constitution, I believe. However, during the course of this ten-year period, namely, every five years, our review would enable us no doubt to avoid such situations as the one that took place in Ms. Parrish's riding, where the number of voters was four or five times higher than the Ontario average. This will probably never happen again because seats will be redistributed within the province, with the same number of seats, so that all of the ridings will be more or less equal. Consequently, parliamentarians and the other candidates will have to contend with ridings that change more often, but the changes will not be as drastic. The impact will be softened considerably if the review is conducted every five years instead of every ten years.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question. When the voter cannot vote in advance or on election day, the Elections Act enables him to vote using an envelope. However, section 44 of the Appendix does not specify how this is to be done. Consequently, the voter could be authorized, to some extent, to vote by fax. What is your reaction to the possibility of voters voting by fax machine? Wouldn't this situation jeopardize the principle of voter confidentiality?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If I may, I will ask Mr. Girard to answer the question.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I would like to reassure you immediately that no ballot sent by fax is accepted. We have set up a system where envelopes are forwarded to Elections Canada. Section 44, which you referred to, stipulates that it is up to the voter, that it is a voter's responsibility, to forward his ballot to Elections Canada in a timely fashion, so that it can be counted. However, we have accepted no ballots that have come in this fashion, although it may come to this someday. We do not accept ballots that are sent by fax or by electronic mail.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If the elector decided to fax in the ballot rather than bringing it in or putting it in the mail, it wouldn't be accepted.

Mr. Jacques Girard: No, of course not.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might add that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the way to monitor the ballots for fraud is through the envelope system. So we need envelopes to monitor and make sure that the ballot we get is the ballot we sent to that person.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But what kind of guarantee do we have when somebody goes to get a ballot and an envelope for someone else using some of that person's ID? What guarantee do we have that the person who went to pick up the envelope and the ballot won't be the one doing the voting instead of the one who provided the ID?

Mr. Jacques Girard: It's a three-envelope system and the second one, the one in the middle, needs the elector's signature. When the request for the ballot is made, the elector must sign the request. When we get the envelope back, we can then compare signatures and make sure that the elector is the one who signed the outside envelope and that it is the same person.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Girard. Ken Epp, George Baker and André Harvey.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you. I have a couple of questions I would like to get clarified.

First of all, you indicate that your costs are less than anticipated. I wonder whether you attribute any of this to the shorter election period and whether you attribute some of the lower costs also to the fact that there was a lower than usual voter turnout. Do either of those affect the cost of the election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Certainly the reduction in the number of days by 11 days, from a minimum of 47 to a minimum of 36, has an impact on the cost. We have calculated that in our business plan to approximate $8 million. I don't know if we can say this time around that it was precisely that, but I suspect it is very close to that.

• 1140

The lower turnout doesn't affect much in the way of costs because you still open the same number of offices, you still pay the same number of people, and you've already printed the ballots. There is very little impact from the lower turnout.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. It appears to me that one of the cost items has to be the establishment of local offices for your returning officers. That has to be a nightmare, because you don't know when the election's going to be called, presumably, and yet space is not available unless it's booked in advance. I would like to have your opinion as to whether or not, from your point of view—this is not a political question now, but we have a stand on this as a political party—in terms of making your whole operation more rational, it would be better to have elections at predetermined intervals.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't know if it would be better. It would be simpler. If simpler is better, then it's better.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It's a non-political answer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think I want to pin you down a little more on that, because I got to know the returning officer in my area and this was one of the problems. He ends up looking for office space and saying to the people he wants it from that he can't tell them when he wants it. Then they ask if they should rent it out to someone else if some other person comes along. And of course the business person would be a fool to say that instead of renting it out to the guy who wants it for the next two years, he's going to give it to the returning officer because presumably he wants it sometime in the next little while.

Surely it must be defensible if you can say next August that you're going to have your returning officers look and book for a space because there will be an election in October. Surely that has to be better.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In that respect, yes, and I will say to you that it is just one of the headaches we face. There are others that would be reduced if that were to happen. There's a whole technology set-up that has to occur now when we rent the space and ship out the computers. As you know, our offices in the field are now significantly computerized. None of them exist before the election is called. All of that would become much simpler for us.

Mr. Ken Epp: From the practical point of view, I guess I am looking for arguments to push this, because as a taxpayer I think that that would significantly reduce costs and increase efficiency. I think it also has a lot to do with obtaining the help of those staff members who are paid. Again, it's a nightmare to have people commit to working in the office when they don't know what their schedule's going to be at the time when this unknown election is called.

I'd like to ask now about the voters lists. Is there any thought being given to streamlining this and actually having voters carry voting cards so that there's perhaps a better way of identifying them? We now have plasticized cards for drivers' licences, with pictures on them, and I know there are a number of organizations where if you buy a card for a certain number of services there are places on the card you punch and this type of thing. I want to know if any thought is being given to that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thought was given to that before we established a national register of electors and before the law was passed to allow it to happen.

When we were developing this right from 1995 on, whenever I appeared before the committee I specifically told the committee, “Here are the variables we intend to look at and here are the variables we're not going to pursue further, and please, tell us if you agree and where you disagree.”

Cards were one of the items that was not pursued further because of the fact that there is a significant cost component to them and because of the fact that with an average of 20% for changes in the data concerning cards every year, you would be into a situation where people write to you and you write to people for 20% of the cards each year. That's what the changes are. So at that time it was decided not to pursue the matter further.

• 1145

We know it is much more expensive if you introduce the matter of a card. We have the experience of the Mexicans, with whom we've linked very closely on this matter. In all other jurisdictions in the world that have cards, it's much more expensive.

Our present system would not lend itself easily to that kind of card, because, as you know, the system that has been set up really relies on automatic, computerized data transfer regarding changes of address or whatever by provincial sources and by the other federal sources that I've mentioned.

We would have to really rethink the scheme if we were to consider cards, but I'm in the hands of the committee in that respect.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think your basic philosophy is that it's the duty of your office to track Canadian citizens to get them on the voters list. I wonder what would happen if we instead said we'd do that until the year 2000, but it's the citizens' duty to make sure they are on the voters list after that if they move. That's really the only change. Either they come into age, they die or they move. In the case of individuals dying, I guess they'd have to have someone else speaking on their behalf. In other cases, they could report to the local office and provide a new address because they're moving, and it would automatically be updated. Would that not significantly reduce your costs, instead of you having to chase down where people live?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, in point of fact, if I may reply with respect to the people who die, we will get the name from the vital statistics registrars in the provinces. Removing those individuals from the lists will not be a complicated matter. We don't need anybody else's consent, except for that perfect match with respect to names, dates of birth, and all that, which is available to these vital statistics registrars.

With respect to anybody else being added to the list now, I think it's important for all the members of the committee to understand that we at Elections Canada will not add one more name to the list that is not already on the list without the person having volunteered or manifested the desire to be on it, and without having that person having attested to being eighteen years of age and that person having attested to being a Canadian citizen.

We're not reaching out to anybody except in the sense that once we get a name... Let's say we get changes of addresses from the province of Ontario, and out of that comes 10,000 names that are not already on the register. We will not add those names. We will write to the people and tell them that they now have a choice, and by the way, they must attest that they're Canadian citizens and are eighteen years of age.

I don't know that I completely answered your question. I just wanted to let you know where it was, but there's no longer a reaching out on our part. During an election, what we will do at revision time is tell people that if they haven't received a card, then they're not on the list and have to do something now. They have to tell us that they exist and want to vote.

Mr. Ken Epp: May I have just one really quick supplementary?

The Chairman: As long as it's quick, because we do have a rather long list, Ken. Go ahead, but the reply also has to be short.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Of course.

Mr. Ken Epp: What are the implications, both operationally and cost-wise, of obtaining the vote from prisoners?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mrs. Vézina will answer that question.

Ms. Janice Vézina (Director, Election Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): They are estimates at this point. There will be a $180,000 total cost for incarcerated electors. When you divide that by the number of electors, it's $18.90 per elector.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Vézina.

George Baker, André Harvey, and then Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): On the same line regarding the inmates, the general vote was down, Mr. Kingsley. I don't know how you would analyse that. I suppose it was mainly because the result was a foregone conclusion that the Liberals would be re-elected. But I wonder if the vote was down in prisons. Was the percentage of those people voting down? I often wonder about long-term inmates, as well. How do you determine what riding they vote in?

• 1150

That's one question, but let me give you the other questions I made a note of here.

A voice: These are people of strong convictions.

Mr. George Baker: Speaking of convictions, how many investigations is your office carrying out concerning complaints? How many are outstanding? How many are being investigated? Are there any charges being laid in any cases?

Finally, as to my last question, we had the electronic filing of candidates' returns this election. There was a working committee this summer, according to your report, that was investigating electronic voting to facilitate voting for electors. I wonder if you could give us a progress report on that, what you looked at and what the possibilities are.

That's three distinct questions.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will ask Mr. Girard to reply with me on some of them.

In terms of the participation rate of inmates, my recollection is that it has not changed from what it was at previous events, but I would like to verify that by looking at the percentages. We know how many inmates there are and we know how many voted in both instances, so we'll come back to you on that. But my recollection is that globally the numbers didn't seem to vary. I have a mental note that I did make that calculation.

Mr. George Baker: You mean it didn't vary from past experience, or from the fact we had low voter turnout and their turnout was also low?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It didn't vary from the previous time. In other words, I don't think it was as substantially reduced as it was for Canadians on average, which was, as you know, about four or five percentage points across the board.

In terms of the number of investigations, I will ask Mr. Girard to reply. I think it's important to remember that it's the Commissioner of Canada Elections who is responsible for this and acts under my general supervision.

Mr. George Baker: According to this report, Mr. Chairman, there were 257 complaints registered with the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

The Chairman: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: As of today there have been 274 complaints lodged with the commissioner: 199 are closed; there are 75 open and no charge has been laid yet. And there are investigations that are taking place as we speak now.

Mr. George Baker: How many?

Mr. Jacques Girard: Investigations?

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I don't have the exact number of investigations that are taking place now, but I can get back to you when I get that number. So there are 75 files open and active now.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With respect to electronic voting—and you build that on top of the electronic filing, which is Janice's area—we had a PhD student do a preliminary study for us over the course of June and July. It is a preliminary report in draft form, but what we were trying to find out was what are the electronic means that in the future might be available for Canadians to vote—what is it that is out there? What's happening in terms of progress with electronics? This is beyond what we saw at the Ontario elections with electronic counting machines; the votes are still cast on a piece of paper before they're counted.

As a result of that preliminary study, we are in the throes of commissioning another study that will take it much further so that we can come out with particular courses of action that we will wish to pursue with this committee concerning other avenues for voting. It may be this will tie into a recommendation I've made before to this committee, that perhaps the law should allow the Chief Electoral Officer, after consulting with this committee, to experiment on a limited basis during by-elections with new ways of voting—perhaps for shut-ins, electronically; perhaps generally for the population.

I would want to come back to the committee and tell you where we are in terms of the study and what avenues have been explored, and to table the studies here so you can know what has been looked at and how you feel about the study. We're interested in involving the Public Policy Forum throughout this study, as well, to help us guide the study team.

• 1155

Mr. George Baker: That's fine, but you didn't answer part of the question I asked, which was how do you determine the home riding of an inmate? That's number one. If their voting pattern was the same as that of before, I presume there would be a very high percentage of turnout. I presume that, but I don't know what your figures are.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: In the past, they were lower than the average. I seem to think that their participation rate was around 50%.

In terms of the determination of their address, I will ask Mr. Girard to reply to that.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I want to reassure you that the votes are not counted in the riding in which the prison is located. When an inmate files an application for a special ballot, he has to give an address. In the act, there are five possibilities for him: the residence of the elector prior to being incarcerated; the residence of a spouse or parent; the place of arrest; or finally, the address of the court in which he was sentenced, because people sometimes don't have a fixed address. It cannot be the institution in which he's incarcerated.

Mr. George Baker: So the inmate has a choice.

Mr. Jacques Girard: Yes, but it checked with the authorities.

Mr. George Baker: Yes.

The Chairman: André Harvey, Carolyn Parrish, and then the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Chief Electoral Officer, you're recommending a new reimbursement formula, sir, both for the parties and for the candidates. You say that this new way of allocating the reimbursement will be a bit unfavourable to the candidates as compared to the parties. What's your goal in making such a recommendation?

Secondly, do you have any ideas concerning what might explain the low participation rate? Is it strictly a matter of accessibility to voting or are there other a bit more existential reasons? With that in mind, I'd like you to perhaps say a few words about the use of new technology. Is it perhaps in that area that we could find the fundamental reasons for the low participation rate of Canadians in our federal elections? This problem doesn't concern elections exclusively; it also finds an echo on other levels. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Harvey, the recommendation to change the repayment formula has very strong links to the recommendation made by the Royal Commission to that effect. One of the reasons is so that both for the parties and the candidates the amount will be the same based, on the number of votes garnered both by the candidate and the party.

When I suggest that the amount to be paid a candidate could be lower, what I have in mind is that you wouldn't want to see an increase in the amount of public funds paid out both to the candidates and the parties. If ever an increase were decided, that would mean that the candidates could be frozen at the same amount whereas the parties could get an increase in their repayment out of public funding which is always a possibility. That matter will be examined by the committee if it so decides. Why do it that way? Finally, in many cases it would avoid having to come to an agreement between the candidates and the parties whereby the candidates reimburse part of the amounts reimbursed to the parties themselves. Besides, that means that the party or the parties would receive more money. The Royal Commission had recognized that the parties had a greater need for funds to be able to subsist between election periods when it's always more difficult to collect money. Basically, I'm just giving you the reasons presented by the Royal Commission and that I endorse as well.

As for the low rate of participation, you're wondering if, in part, we could solve the problem by developing electronic voting means or a possibility of voting through electronic means. I think the answer might be there in part. But I must admit that I'm totally astonished because when Bill C-114 saw the light of day, the system was made to be user-friendly and voter-friendly as I was mentioning earlier.

• 1200

The possibility of using a special ballot really revolutionized how things are done in Canada electorally speaking. It made voting and advance voting easier, and made it possible to change one's registration on the very day of the vote. You can be absent from all lists and register the day of the vote. You can even do that now for advanced polling.

But what's happening? The participation rate is still dropping. Maybe the answers are somewhere else. It's probably not the machine as such or the procedures that are defective, but there certainly is something else.

We might perhaps get the beginning of an explanation after completion of the Nevitte study that we requested from a group of academics who do a kind of study before or during each vote. We asked them to ask those who don't vote why they don't. The first thing that was reported to me about this, yesterday, is that 82% of people questioned say that they voted while we definitely know that only 67% of the population did actually vote. We know that the explanation doesn't lie with the sampling; it's not that because the sampling is good. The margin of error is 3.5%, approximately, and it is rather extraordinary that 15% of the people questioned stated that they voted when, in fact, they did not.

It might also be important to understand those people. In other words, they feel guilty for not having done it and they don't want to admit it. Of course, we can only ask the 18% of respondents who did admit not having voted why they didn't vote.

Once the study has been completed, if you so wish, I could share the answers with you and tell you why people say they don't vote. I'd like to know why 15% say they did vote when they actually didn't. I'm interested in that too. But we won't get the answer to that one.

Mr. André Harvey: A small detail, Mr. Chairman.

Coming back to my first question about the redeployment of the reimbursement, I must admit that I would find it totally unacceptable for the Royal Commission to recommend a new system favouring the parties to the detriment of the candidates. As an MP, what concerns me is the fate of our candidate colleagues. The parties are important, but we know very well that the financial situation of the candidates is sometimes extremely difficult after an election. An election calls into question the whole financial situation of the candidate's family. We know that there are people who risk a lot in the context of an election campaign. I would be very surprised if such a recommendation were to be accepted. in any case, I hope that won't happen.

If, for democratic reasons, the government were to encourage a rebalancing favouring parties a little more, we'd have to think about it. If that's what it means, we might have to face the fact. I hope that the new system won't be detrimental to candidate reimbursements. You know, Chief Electoral Officer, that some candidates and families find themselves in dire financial straits after an election campaign. So it seems to me we should think of a better system, but not with a view to being detrimental to the candidate.

As for the 15% of people who, for the purposes of your polling, insisted on saying that they had voted even though they had not, that also is a concern for me, as a parliamentarian.

Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would like to say that if the only result of the recommendation is to get a debate going on the amounts repaid from the public purse, both for the parties and the candidates, it will have been of some use.

If we decide to maintain the amount of the refund to the candidate and to increase the amount of the refund to the party, it will be a decision by parliamentarians that I will pleased to respect.

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, Yvon Charbonneau, John Richardson, and then the chair.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have two questions.

Maybe this is already in here and I just haven't found it. On the shorter election period, have you calculated yet, from the election returns and the rebates, if there's going to be a great deal of money saved on rebates to candidates, since they spent less this election because it was a shorter election period?

• 1205

I would be very interested in the answer to that question—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We will note that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —because I spent probably half of what the limit set for me was. I had no need to continue spending, because it was a short election period and I was not sitting around restless about having to get another piece out. Also, I bought no signs this time. I was far more frugal simply because I wasn't filling a lot of time that didn't need to be filled.

So I would be very interested in seeing if the shorter election period in fact is saving the government a lot of money on the rebates to candidates.

The other thing I would be very interested in—and I'm sorry the chairman's not here—is Bill C-69. Oh, there's the chairman over there.

When we worked on Bill C-69, we had a lot of recommendations in that bill. You've focused on reassessing every five years instead of every ten. As you know, my riding got up to 363,000 people based on the census you just did. So it was insane.

I'm wondering if in a quiet moment you could look through Bill C-69 and see if there are other recommendations in there that you would consider to be efficient and worth re-resurrecting that bill for.

One of the things I'd like to see—and I'm sure the Reform Party will support me on this—is a whole discussion on limiting the House of Commons to 301 so that we won't keep growing like Topsy and run out of seating room in there.

An hon. member: Right on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to see us have a second look at Bill C-69.

I know that a lot of people accused us of doing it just to try to save Liberal seats, but we didn't. It was a good piece of legislation. We worked hard on it.

I'm sure you've got pieces other than that one recommendation on the five years that are money saving and efficient. Maybe at that point, if we were to look at it again, we could look at setting a limit of 301 seats.

That was more a speech than a question.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will comment very briefly by saying that the recommendation focuses on resurrecting Bill C-69 without the retroactive effect, because it's no longer possible to have the retroactive kicker in it. But all the other dispositions, all the other clauses about how public participation is obtained, all of these things—we stand behind that as well. So there are other aspects, as you say, that we favour in that bill.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would be really pleased to see your comments on the bill now that it's non-existent and it's not as political. We could see if the chairman could resurrect it and we could have another look at it, because I think it's timely now—not the year before an election, but now.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Liberal): Mr. Chair, what are the guidelines regarding the registration of voters in residences for senior citizens?

I will tell you what kind of situation I found myself in, during the last elections, in two residences where there were tens of people aged from 75 to 100. As they were all on the voters' list, I did all the floors of the residence. I tried to greet them and most of them did not even know their name. They did not know whether it was morning or afternoon. They knew nothing. They were half-asleep or obviously under the influence of drugs.

If I had been followed by a journalist at that point, I would have been very vulnerable. He could have said: look at what the Liberals are doing with the elderly; they'll go and solicit their vote although these people no longer know their name or their age. There was no fault on my part. I was really working in good faith. I don't know all the sectors perfectly well. I suppose that from time to time people from any party can find themselves in such a situation. It is a highly embarrassing situation. If we had been photographed or recorded at that point by journalists, we would have showed up as inhumane individuals, out to grab votes from people who were hardly conscious of what was going on. It is a very serious matter.

The Chair: Mr. Girard.

Mr. Jacques Girard: What you are describing is as a matter of fact a highly sensitive situation, but however we must be aware of the fact that these people have the right to vote according to the Constitution.

Obviously, electoral personnel must use its discretion, but the final test required by law is that the voter, when he turns up to vote, must be capable of stating his name and address. This is what is applied as far as possible by electoral officers. If they visit a residence for the elderly and arrive in a room where a person is not capable of identifying themselves, this person will not be allowed to vote. But it is a very sensitive issue.

• 1210

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: His address... The point is that the person lives there, but does not really know where she is. Let's say she comes from the Beauce, and now she is in a residence in Montreal. If I ask her to tell me something about her life, she will talk to me about the Beauce and not about Montreal. This is not how the survey works. She doesn't even understand the question. There are quite a few of these people on the list. Who registered them on the list? I have already put this question and I got the answer that this was done downstairs, between management and the census officer who had come by, and who had been told to register all these people. How does this work? How can this be done this way? You give directions and you certainly have people doing supervision. Was any supervision done? Ridings do have sensitive points.

Mr. Jacques Girard: There are as a matter of fact guidelines that are given to the returning officer. The problem that you mentioned will no longer arise to the extent that there will no longer be any census. Perhaps it is a good thing.

Regarding guidelines, normally, the census officer must see each person that he registers or go from room to room. Some institutions simply do not allow this because the people are too confused, and because this adds to the confusion, because it's during mealtime, etc. The Act has provided that the returning officer can make arrangements with institutions to register those people. This is done within the framework of the act, but sometimes there are situations where some very confused persons end up on the voters' list.

However, mental incapacity is no longer a reason for losing one's right to vote in a federal election. Formerly it used to be so, but it is no longer so. It has been judged to be unconstitutional.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Now I have a question on polling stations, on their accessibility for people with reduced mobility. Is this compulsory or optional? I have heard both versions. Some tell me that these people simply have to go to the early polling station, where accessibility is guaranteed, but there are people who want to go and vote on election day, and I've seen that there were steps, stairways and things like that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Diane to answer, please.

Ms. Diane Bruyère (Joint Director, Operations, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): The Electoral Act requires a polling station to be accessible at ground level, whether this be an early polling station or a polling station used on election day.

However, there is a provision which allows, when it is really impossible to find an accessible poll, to ask the Chief Electoral Officer the permission to use a place which is not accessible. The Act also has provided that if the poll is not accessible, the voter can obtain a transfer certificate allowing him to vote at some other accessible place.

During the 1997 elections, more than 97% of our polling stations were accessible at ground level. So things are going well from that point of view. Also, on the map that we send to the voter to tell him that he has been registered, we indicate whether or not his polling station is accessible.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Regarding the distribution of polls over a territory, I have noticed that there could be a grouping of polls in a certain region of the territory at the expense of the other regions, which entails much travelling in certain segments of the population. We could find appropriate places in each one of the sectors of a riding. What can we do, as a candidate or as a party, to ensure a better distribution of polling stations?

Ms. Diane Bruyère: Before an election, the returning officer is in charge of examining the sites where he will be installing his polling stations. At that time he is expected to consult the political parties in the riding to get their comments regarding the previous elections and to ask them where, in their mind, the stations should be placed.

Obviously, we could choose to use any community hall once the election is called, but it could happen that that hall is not available on election day and that people have to go elsewhere.

There is a tendency to centralize polling stations as much as possible, which means putting more than one in the same place when it is practical to do so and when it does not interfere too much with compilation. This is simply because it provides a better service. There is registration at the polling station and all that.

• 1215

When choosing a polling station, obviously, we must always look at the distance that the voters will have to travel to get there. That is the most important factor.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Does the presence of a maple leaf in a polling station go against the rules, or does wearing a maple leaf as you go to vote constitute a partisan symbol? This is what certain people in my riding were told. Last time, I was barred from voting because I had a tiny little maple leaf right here. I was told that this was partisan.

In a classroom, students had made drawings and there were maple leaves from last autumn glued to the wall. This posed a serious problem. A certain political party said that this was a partisan room and that this was going to influence the vote. Is any of this a part of the rules of your organization?

A member: It must not have been the Bloc.

Mr. Jacques Girard: This is a good illustration of the joys of being on the telephone on election day at Elections Canada.

To reply to your question, the guideline said that flags and emblems were allowed. The maple leaf or the fleur-de-lis were allowed. You might have run into some zealous people.

[English]

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): When you designed the register of electors, one of the principles was to protect the privacy of the electors and safeguard them. I wonder if you could share with us some of the technology or some of the techniques you used to ensure that principle was enacted during the last election?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: To begin with, we distributed to every household in Canada a folder explaining how the last enumeration was going to take place and the fact that a register was being established and the right of citizens to have their information protected.

Secondly, there is an option whereby Canadians can opt out of the register after they have voted, by writing to me.

Thirdly, there is an option whereby Canadians can have the information concerning them withheld from any transfer of information I provide to a province or municipality for an election.

Fourthly, none of our computers are linked directly with National Revenue computers or with any provincial computers. It's all information that comes on hard disk or CD, so there's no possibility of computers linking and our getting access to information that's none of our concern or their getting access in return which is none of their concern.

An elector can obtain the information concerning him or her at any time by writing to me. It cannot be done on the phone, because that would lead to the possibility of invasion of privacy. So the fact that it cannot be done on the phone is further evidence of this.

The law requires that the information the register contains be shared only for electoral purposes. Administratively, we have made it such that whenever another jurisdiction has asked us for access to the register concerning electors in that jurisdiction we have reviewed their practices, and if, for example, in a jurisdiction the list is posted, then we refuse to share the list. This has happened in a number of jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions they have changed their laws to accommodate the requirements that have been put forward. Plus—and I'll add this as the last one that comes to mind—the privacy commissioner can come into Elections Canada at any time on the basis of anything to review all our practices.

Mr. John Richardson: I'm glad to see so many safeguards.

You did mention something about the computer. Is it a secure computer system that you have?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The room in which the computer functions is a secured room at Elections Canada, at our headquarters here, and it is protected.

I will say something else I forgot to mention. The information you get as members of Parliament for the list you get annually, and the information parties get on that basis, at the end of any election is seeded with information that is particular to you and that you don't know exists. You know it exists, you know there's something, but you don't know what it is. If there's any electronic misuse of this electronic information, then we can trace where the leak occurred—not who leaked, but where the leak occurred—through what source, because all of the disks are seeded with different information.

• 1220

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have a couple of questions. Let me give them to you all at once, and then you can deal with them as you wish.

One of the facts we are dealing with in this country is that we have a largely aging society. I think that puts some special requirements on the voting procedure, to ensure that more elderly Canadians can participate as fully as they wish. One of the areas where I found that was a real problem was that, presumably in an effort to save money, the number of polling stations was reduced in my riding. That meant that a number of people who live in seniors apartment buildings—not nursing homes, not health care institutions, but in seniors apartment buildings—no longer had a polling booth in their building. They therefore did not have as easy access to voting as they have enjoyed in the past. That's one aspect of it.

The other has to do with the issue Mr. Charbonneau raised. I appreciate the problems—I think we all face them in our ridings—of going into an institution where many of the voters are not aware of what's going on. That's a decision we make as candidates, to just avoid certain situations. My bigger concern is that regardless of what judgment I or anybody else might pass on someone's ability to vote or to make judgments, they do have the right to be listed on the list. At the moment I don't believe there is any requirement that an institution provide you with the names of all its residents. I know that it does not happen in many cases, and I think that is something that also needs to be addressed. None of us around this table should have any right, except the voter, to decide if they will or will not or can or cannot vote.

The second point was with respect to electronic voting. As you may know, in this region they did use electronic counting procedures for the votes. There was some interest expressed in ensuring that the different levels of government could cooperate in terms of electronic voting, to keep down the costs of equipment and so on. That sounded to me like a reasonably good idea, particularly if you're moving towards looking at that. I'd certainly appreciate, when you're coming back to us, that you have a look at that. Obviously there would be cost savings involved for all levels of government, if that were possible.

There is also the idea that whatever system you might be looking at would be able to indicate to the voter how their vote had been recorded. I found it pretty perturbing not to know how my vote had been recorded after I had voted.

Third, you mentioned the obligation to consult the parties in terms of things like polling stations and so on. I wasn't aware of that, and to the best of my knowledge I'm not sure that has happened or does happen routinely, so I would like to know more about that.

The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Madame Bruyère to answer some of the questions that were posed, and Mr. Girard to answer the other one.

I will talk about the electronic voting at this time simply to state that obviously, as I've indicated, we'll come back to you with the full report once we have commissioned one. The outline of it is now ready, and we're out there.

In terms of sharing equipment and systems with our provincial and municipal counterparts, we are actively working on that. I think it is important for you to know, though, that at this time I don't see much advantage in taking over counting machines, because the way the count is done now, which is manual, is very hard to beat. It's done right there in front of everybody and there's only one thing to count. We don't have multiple decisions to make at the federal level. I've always said if we ever get into a situation where there are four or five decisions, then this kind of machine would be worth it. If we ever go there—if we ever go towards electronic voting—then obviously we're going to be into electronic counting, and that would be ridiculous.

• 1225

I really liked your point about being notified of how you voted when that machine eats up your piece of paper or whatever. I had the same impression when I voted. I can still vote at municipal levels, you know that, but not at the federal level. I did vote and I had that same sensation.

Also, sometimes the vote is rejected, yet everything is okay and you don't know why. Then the machine accepts it the second time, and you say to yourself it didn't know what it was doing the second time. That happened to my wife. All of these things happen when you introduce something as small as that.

There was also the fact that there seemed to have been an impact on the number of polling stations in some municipalities—Ottawa being one—because of the fact that these machines can eat up so much paper. They do the count so much more quickly that the number of polling stations was reduced, which goes against the grain of what you were saying earlier about reaching out to the aging population.

I'll ask Diane to answer that part and Jacques to answer the other one.

The Chairman: We have about 20 more minutes, because this room is required. I don't want you to reduce the content of your answers, but if you could speak very quickly, it might help.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Diane Bruyère: I'm usually told I speak too quickly, so I'm trying to slow down today.

A number of mechanisms are in place in the legislation dealing with how people can vote and how returning officers set up polling stations. There's a specific provision with regard to the elderly or disabled, which allows us to have mobile polls where these people live in an institution that is too small to have its own polling station by itself. That's one of the considerations the returning officers look at.

The other is that when we give them training, we always say, if you have a building where you have senior citizens and there are enough people in there, put a poll in there by all means, because it does make it much more accessible for them. What we found in 1997 was that in many instances, we could not put polls in senior citizens' buildings that we had had polls in before, because the superintendent or the owner of the building simply would not allow us to have people from the outside come in to vote there also, in order to make it high enough to make it worth while to have a poll for 12 hours.

With regard to the consultation of parties, part of the instructions we give to the returning officers is that when they do the revision of their polling division boundaries as well as when they decide where they will have their polling stations, they should contact all of the political associations within their riding to do so.

In this particular election it may have been a bit more difficult for them to do that, because of redistribution and reorganizing of local associations, and the fact that the returning officers in some cases did this work a bit late in the process. They may not have had as much an opportunity due to do that, but it is part of the instructions we give them.

Mr. Jacques Girard: I would like to add two little things to what Ms. Bruyère just said concerning the elderly people.

One option is to look at the possibility of extending the mobile poll. It's something we can look at and come back to you and say maybe it's feasible, in which case we would have to amend the legislation. It would be a minor amendment, and it could accommodate a lot of people.

Also, establishing a requirement for those in charge of institutions to provide us with a list is something that could be done. If you are interested, we can come back to you with some kind of assessment of how it could work.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have one last comment, Mr. Chairman, to address in part this issue.

I want to assure all members of the committee that money is a consideration, definitely, when we run elections. It is not the consideration, however, at any time. I wish to assure all members of the committee of this. We have not hesitated to spend money to reach out to electors in whatever way, but we do wish to see systems exist so it's possible to perform the usual tasks within reasonable budgets, and that's something Canadian taxpayers are entitled to.

The Chairman: Marlene, is that okay?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have one more question, and you may want to come back to us at a later time on this. I do think we need another meeting with you, at least, in the very near future.

• 1230

What measures are in place to determine how well the list is performing over time and is able keep up with the total population? I think you'll recall from our earlier discussions I was concerned about certain populations that are less likely to be plugged into the mass media—illiterate populations, poor communities—remaining current on that list. I would like to know if you have some measures in place to evaluate the list over time to make sure the number of people isn't dropping significantly or it isn't failing to keep up with population growth, and if it is seen to be dropping that we analyse how and where it is dropping and what we can do about that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That was an excellent question. We will come back to share with you how we are going to control that.

The Chairman: It's Bob Kilger next, then the chair. Then I propose we go to a second round. I have two people on the list. They will be very short questions and very short answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger: I am very encouraged by the progress which has been made regarding the agreements with the provinces in view of establishing and maintaining a permanent electoral list, but I would like to raise another topic.

[English]

We spent a lot of time prior to the election talking about staggered hours. We had one glitch and I think we all feel terrible about that. I wonder if you have any data—notwithstanding that total voter turnout was reduced by approximately 4% or 5%—on what the impact of the staggered hours was, if any, across the country from region to region, from time zone to time zone.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Do you mean in terms of participation?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We can get that for you.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We don't have that at hand, but I will offer an opinion. I think staggered hours—and I recommended that earlier before the law was changed—did bear out to be a very good idea. That glitch turned out not to be disastrous in terms of the impact and people were still able to vote. There is a remedy proposed in the recommendations I have made to eliminate that glitch in the future.

So I will answer that to begin with, and we will come back with data for you. We may provide it to you in writing in the meantime. Okay?

Mr. Bob Kilger: That's fine, thank you.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Kingsley and his officials for continuing to challenge us to improve the Elections Canada Act or do whatever might be required to continue to improve the system and make it increasingly available to the electorate.

I see you've left us with a list of things to consider. It's timely, of course, after an election and far before the next one. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Bob.

Mr. Kingsley, my question has to do with the report itself. To be honest, I have never looked at such a report before. I would imagine, given the changes in the Elections Act, this is a particularly valuable example because it's the most recent experience applied to the changes in the legislation and so on. It's sort of a post-mortem on what went on and tries to maximize the benefits.

I wonder how far you reached in getting information and commentary on it in order to produce the report. You have your officials, obviously, and you have employees in the system. How far out do you go to elicit experience?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is primarily based on the experience of the people who work at head office. You must remember we take into account all of the telephone calls we receive from returning officers when we make that report. If you are interested, I think we get seven phone calls a day from returning officers and we keep tabs on each telephone conversation, so we know what the problems are.

Obviously, in answering your question, I'm saying we did not consult directly with the returning officers. The fact that the report has to be produced in such a short time—60 days after the election, and that's why I went out of my way to say it was tabled on August 22 with the Speaker—pre-empts that from occurring in a meaningful sense.

But we do have post-mortem sessions. We will be convening in Ottawa approximately 60 returning officers. We don't want to call them all in; there's no need to spend all that money. We will also be doing that with some assistant returning officers, some of the data coordinators, and we'll also be writing to others who were involved in the process. This is the most extensive post-mortem we have ever done.

The returning officers have to provide us with a written commentary on the election, and all of this is analysed. That's how we determine who comes in, by the way. We look at who put the most effort into that to see who really has something to offer us in terms of feedback so that further improvements will come out of this post-mortem.

• 1235

The Chairman: How is that additional information, then, which is a very grassroots experience, fed into the process the way this report has been fed into the process?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Which process, sir?

The Chairman: The improvement of the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: When we appear before you at subsequent times, when you're considering changes to the statute, we keep in mind all of the changes returning officers have suggested. We make you aware of them, and tell you that this is where returning officers wrote to us, and where we agree with what they've said.

The Chairman: Okay.

For the second round, we'll start with Ken Epp. A very short question, please, and a very short answer.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to ask a question, get an answer, and then I have another one after that, depending on the answer.

Who's responsible for determining the boundaries of the polls within the riding?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The returning officer.

Mr. Ken Epp: In the area.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: He has rules to follow, probably, but he has total freedom to do that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There are ground rules. We assist with computer-assisted determinations.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. That makes my second question redundant, sir.

The Chairman: I'm not really putting pressure on you, Ken.

Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I did not like the maps without the street names on them. They were horrible. I forgot about that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, my maps were awful too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: They're your maps and they're our maps.

This was the first time that when we transferred the data it was computer-based. The maps will improve significantly next time. The previous maps were rich, with a lot of detail, because they had been built manually, over time. When it came time to transfer to a computer-based system, we had to go with existing maps that were already computerized. Otherwise, the effort would have cost millions of dollars.

We saved a lot by doing it that way, but we know there's been a price paid by both you and the other candidates who are not here, the ones who did not win the elections. Next time we know it'll be much better. Whenever you switch around to something like this it doesn't always go as smoothly as one would like. This is one where I say mea culpa, quite frankly.

The Chairman: Thank you. Your Latin is excellent.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have one more question.

Would it be possible to rearrange the rules so that voters could vote at a polling station near them rather than the only one that's designated, especially in the rural areas, where we have those anomalies?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's a tough one.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I'll leave it with you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I do have an answer to a question proposed previously by Mr. Epp with respect to an elector card. It occurred to me when we were answering another question that we already provide a card to each elector when the election is called.

I'm wondering if we couldn't work out something with the committee respecting this to attain at least some of the objectives you have in mind, sir. We can discuss that again.

The Chairman: Colleagues, before I thank our witnesses, I would like to suggest that we apportion part of our agenda on Tuesday—because I don't think it will be a complete agenda—to a discussion of how we follow up on this meeting, if that's okay.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Kingsley, I really would like to thank you and your colleagues for coming here. I think you have a sense of it. I for one am delighted at the leadership we are showing in the provinces and municipalities. I attended your conference on the election in Mexico, and was very impressed by the fact that we are also showing leadership abroad. I think we're fairly conscious of that.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you all very much for being here this morning.

• 1240

Colleagues, we have a procedural matter. Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I move that in accordance with the committee's mandate under Standing Order 115.(4) and the room assignment system for all committees, the slot for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be reassigned from group one to group two.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I declare the meeting closed, colleagues. Thank you very much.