HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 21, 2002

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

1110

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1115

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Carol Lesage (Director, Parliamentary Representation, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada)

1120

1125

1130

The Chair

1135

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1140

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1145

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1150

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

1155

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1200

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

1205

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Rob Anders

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Janice Vézina

1210

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

1215

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1220

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

1230

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1235

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1240

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Carol Lesage

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1245

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Yvon Godin

1250

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

1255

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

1300

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 007

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin.

You have the order of the day, which, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), is matters relating to the election of members, including electoral boundaries readjustment in Canada, and the performance report 2001-02 of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

We have representatives of that office here, and I'm going to introduce them in a moment. However, we will begin by looking at the calendar for November and December 2002, which everybody has.

[Translation]

Does everyone have it?

[English]

If I could simply walk you through that, November 21 is obviously today's meeting. The suggestion for November 25 is important for the whips. It is that sometime in the afternoon on Monday we would have a steering committee meeting. The steering committee meeting would be about the work on private members' business. This is, by the way, the changes to the Standing Orders. It's a fairly complex matter.

My suggestion is that we have a steering committee meeting, and that we would be briefed by representatives of the House of Commons. For that meeting, I would suggest that the parties seriously consider designating someone who is particularly involved with private members' business.

This is not to say that all the whips are not the perfect representatives for this meeting. I'm not saying that at all. Do each of the parties...? I'll repeat it again for the party that's not here, when they come.

It's a steering committee. We will send out a notice. The notice will say it's about private members' business. It is a special briefing for members of each party. The notice will also say the parties might consider sending someone who is particularly involved.

I was thinking, by the way—although it is not for me to think for the Alliance—of Garry Breitkreuz, for the sake of argument. He would be an example of somebody who has been very wrapped up in it. As we move into the technical part of private members' business, it would be extremely useful that a representative of each party be up to speed. That's the suggestion.

We then move to November 26, which is next Tuesday. It says “Ethics: Provincial” and “Déontologie: Provinces”. As witnesses, we're going to have ethics commissioners from a number of provinces. We're starting with people who have had good experience at it.

The suggestion is that, likely next Wednesday evening, there will be a round table of MPs. This would be open and would be about the ethics matter. We would send out notices for that as soon as possible, either today or tomorrow. We then proceed, and you'll see that it says “either/or”, because it's a matter of the availability of these persons.

[Translation]

Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...on each item separately?

[English]

The Chair: At the end. Can I go through it? It will give you a sense of it.

At the next one, we're back to the ethics matter. It's either Howard Wilson or Rob Walsh, depending on who is available. That would be at 11 a.m., our regular time.

You'll notice that it then says something about a working lunch. I want to explain that, because one suggestion in our planning for how we deal with ethics is that we call the Speaker, in his capacity as the member for Kingston and the Islands. It has been suggested to me that this is not appropriate, in that he is in fact now the Speaker and it is not easy or appropriate for him to be dealing in public and to be giving his personal opinions on some of these matters. So that working lunch is actually an informal meeting with the Speaker.

Do the parties understand what I'm saying? As long as you know that, I think it's better that I put it down there as a working lunch with the Speaker. We've been invited to lunch. We'll go to lunch with the Speaker. We will, as it happens, discuss the work that he has done on these matters.

The following Tuesday, December 3, we're back to ethics, and that's with the academics. We have a number we are approaching. We had a list last time, including, for example, Dr. Weinstock from the Université de Montréal, and some others. They're going to give us what I suppose is a more theoretical perspective.

On December 5, the Thursday, it's again either Rob Walsh or Howard Wilson. It's a matter of their availability between the two Thursdays, November 28 and December 5.

On December 10, we'll probably come back to the Clerk of the House and the Deputy Clerk for a more senior view of it. At the moment, that is not cast in stone; that is just the way it looks.

I'll come to questions in a minute.

At the bottom, it says “Other business”. We have to bear this in mind, because there are other things we're supposed to be doing. One is security. You know we're proceeding with that already, but we have not yet received responses from the people we've asked for information from. Events in the House, in Centre Block the other day, have given more pressure to that, and we may be asked to do more on security.

The other outstanding thing is the House performance report, which is for the House of Commons itself.

Werner.

Á (1110)

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Did you schedule private members' business on December 5?

The Chair: I did. The idea there is that we will have spent an hour and a quarter on the ethics question by that time, so we would then move to something on the private members' business. That is dealing with the draft standing order, Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I understand.

The Chair: I hope the steering committee will be based on it.

Thank you. I apologize for that. Anyone else?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chair, I have another question.

The Chair: Let me hear it then.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The one other question that I had was who the “we” are who are deciding on these witnesses. Is it the steering committee that decides that?

The Chair: We have the draft list of everybody's suggestions. We're simply going through it and are trying to get as many of them as we can.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay, but is it the steering committee that's going through that list?

The Chair: Yes, the list was prepared by the steering committee. Together with the staff, I am going through the list that the steering committee gave to me.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: When will we have that list?

The Chair: The list exists. We will get you—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I mean the list that you will finally choose.

The Chair: Oh, I see.

It's a matter of chicken-and-egg. For example, with the provincial ethics people, I know now that the Ontario commissioner is not available, but I believe the B.C., Alberta, and Yukon commissioners are available. If they're available, we get them. If they're not, we don't.

By the way, you can go through the list again and say we need to call such-and-such a person whose name has been missed. We'll get you a copy of the list during the meeting—and I'm sorry, because I often do have that at hand.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, you have scheduled the round table with members of Parliament for Wednesday, the 27th. First, I know that some caucus meetings are planned for the evening of the 27th. Second, there are many activities for all members that are happening at the same time. Scheduling just one evening for the round table may mean that people will not have an opportunity to present their views.

Might there not be some way of scheduling at least two evenings so that those who cannot attend on the 27th may come at some other time?

Á (1115)

[English]

The Chair: Again, I'm trying to interpret the wishes of the committee. Maybe we could move it to the following Wednesday, or we could move it to a Tuesday. And by the way, Wednesday is the day when we have the maximum possible number of members here.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am not questioning the choice of a Wednesday. All I am saying is that scheduling just one evening for all members of Parliament may not be enough. I would suggest that there be two evenings, to give members more opportunity to take part in this round table.

[English]

The Chair: I'll take that under advisement.

By the way, I would be quite willing to say in the notice, if I might argue the case.... If I can get two, the odds are that a lot of people will say they'll go the second time. I could therefore say that an additional meeting will be held if necessary. Could I do that?

Colleagues, I'm now looking around for a motion.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're getting into minutiae here with the calendar and so forth. We have witnesses waiting, so I wonder if we could proceed.

The Chair: Thank you, Dale.

If it's okay, I'm going to do what I just said. We'll announce it at that time, and I will say another meeting will be held if necessary.

Colleagues, that's not engraved in stone, but that's so you know what we're doing.

It's now my pleasure to introduce Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, and members of his staff: Diane Davidson, deputy chief electoral officer and chief legal counsel; Janice Vézina, senior director of election financing and corporate services; and Carol Lesage, whose title I don't know.

Carol, would you care to say what you do?

Mr. Carol Lesage (Director, Parliamentary Representation, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I'm the director of parliamentary representation, and I look after the support to the commissions on electoral redistribution.

The Chair: Okay, thank you for that.

Jean-Pierre, you don't need any advice on how to deal with the committee. I understand that you have a statement, for which I have notes.

Colleagues, do you have the notes?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: We're in your hands, Mr. Kingsley.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I will accept any advice you would care to offer at any time as to how I should appear before the committee.

It is a privilege for me to appear before this committee to present for the first time the 2001-2002 Performance Report for my office.

I am accompanied by Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Janice Vézina, Senior Director of Election Financing and Corporate Services, and Carol Lesage, Director of Parliamentary Representation.

First, I will highlight the major accomplishments outlined in the report that you have before you. Then, I will update you on the progress that we have made on a number of priorities since I last appeared before this committee, six months ago. Lastly, I will make a few comments on redistribution, which is one of the items on today's agenda, as shown on your website.

I wish to remind the committee that my office operates on two separate budget authorities: vote 20 and the statutory authority. Vote 20 is the component of our budget that this committee considers each year, at least officially. It covers the salaries of our permanent employees. The statutory authority covers all other expenses of my office. In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures incurred under the statutory authority amounted to $35.3 million. The remaining $14.3 million of expenditures were incurred under vote 20 and related authorities.

In 2001-2002, Elections Canada devoted a large part of its efforts to concluding the outstanding operational, legal and financial matters relating to the 2000 general election. We also worked on responding to the feedback received from this committee and other stakeholders. We completed and tabled the report Modernizing the Electoral Process, one year to the day after the general election. It contains extensive recommendations for electoral reform under eight main headings. We launched the redistribution process, and we developed plans with a focus on maintaining the quality of the list of electors.

The Performance Report is organized around our three strategic outcomes: event delivery; event readiness; and public education, information and support on electoral matters to Canadians, parliamentarians, boundary commissions and other stakeholders, including political parties, of course.

In terms of event delivery, our main focus during 2001-2002 was the wrap-up of the 2000 general election. We issued reimbursements and completed the review of the various financial reports for parties, candidates and third parties. We also published virtually all that information on our website. We also completed and made public wide-ranging evaluations of all aspects of the general election. This was the most comprehensive such appraisal to date.

Concerning event readiness, during 2001-2002, I have taken note of this committee's views regarding voter registration, the inquiries centre, the advertising programs as well as systems such as “REVISE”, which is the voter registration system used in all returning offices.

Your input and our extensive post-2000 election evaluations have focused our attention on the quality of the list of electors and the voter information card. I will provide some highlights of these initiatives in a moment.

We have also improved the National Geographic Data Base, maintained jointly with Statistics Canada. It is used for automated mapping and support of the redistribution process. It is used as well to assign electors to electoral districts and polling divisions for the voter information card. In 2001-2002, we increased the proportion of electors who are geo-referenced, that is, linked to a point on a map. By December of this year, fully 8 out of 10 electors will be geo-referenced.

Our third strategic outcome is public education and the provision of information and support to Canadians, parliamentarians, our partners and other stakeholders. During the 2001-2002 period, we focused on new initiatives and made it a priority to improve communication with the public. We held an open, competitive process to select an advertising agency, and we initiated a project to revamp our inquiries centre.

[English]

Á (1120)

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to bring committee members up to date on Elections Canada's activities since I last appeared before you six months ago. At that time, I stated that our readiness plans and major improvement initiatives will converge on March 31, 2003. That is our planning date for major changes to systems that can be implemented in time for a subsequent election.

On October 15, members of Parliament and registered political parties received the latest list of electors, updated from administrative sources including the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, drivers' licence files and vital statistics agencies from the provinces, British Columbia's and Quebec's permanent lists of electors, and revisions from the seven by-elections held in May. We are working with the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta to gain access to the drivers' licence data for that province. In Manitoba, we're continuing our efforts to re-establish the flow of drivers' data. In the meantime, we've struck an agreement with the City of Winnipeg—which includes two-thirds of the electors in that province—concerning the election that they just held at the end of October. We will get their updated lists and update our lists accordingly.

By the way, the consent rate for transferring information is unchanged, at 84% on tax returns. That is beyond our expectations, as you may remember. Also, it is now at 91% on citizenship applications, so that one continues to grow. As of October 15, some 90% of all potential electors are listed in the register, and close to 83% of all electors are listed at the correct address.

The register is a shared responsibility amongst members of Parliament, political parties, and Elections Canada. I can tell you from my experience on the international scene that electronic lists work very well when elected officials and political parties take an active interest in the lists between elections, as well as at election time.

Members of Parliament and political parties have asked me to consider providing indicators to flag the occurrence and nature of updates to elector records on the lists that they receive. We will be able to implement this change—which requires system modifications—starting with the lists in October 2003. We will be consulting extensively with political parties through the advisory committee and with members of Parliament through this committee, to ensure that your requirements are addressed. In other words, you will help us design what you want to know.

We conducted a pilot project during the May by-elections and are conducting a second one during the two by-elections now in progress. The May exercise focused on targeted revision, while the current exercise focuses on testing the removal of “or the occupant” as an addressee on the voter information card. You may remember that you raised this as a concern at the last election. We are also looking to see if there are benefits to sending informational pamphlets after the distribution of the voter information card, versus the current procedure of mailing them in advance of the voter information card. I will be reporting the outcome of these pilot projects to you, as well as providing my statutory report on the by-elections.

In the spring of 2002, returning officers were directed to invite MPs to review and improve addresses on lists of electors for their electoral districts. I also wrote to all of the political parties, inviting them to participate in this process.

Participation by Elections Ontario, Elections Nova Scotia, and Elections Prince Edward Island, has increased the effectiveness and the productivity of the federal returning officers in respect of this exercise. Returning officers are also asked to add any missing streets to their maps and to revise polling division boundaries and polling sites. The October 15 lists give you an opportunity to verify this work and to provide my office with any feedback you deem desirable.

Á (1125)

With respect to addresses, the polling division revisions in over a third of the ridings are reflected on the lists that were sent to MPs. The rest will be completed by this coming December and will be included in next year's October 15 mail-outs. After July 2003, following redistribution, we will need to revise polling divisions again.

In May 2001, we reached an agreement—and I remember telling you about this—with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to change the consent mechanism on income tax returns, thus allowing us to add new electors from this source. As a result of this change, we received data for some 2.6 million potential new electors. I'm consulting right now with the advisory committee of political parties, regarding the best way to add this information to the lists. In other words, they are not on the October 15 lists that you've received. We are ready to add them, but I need to consult.

We are well on the way to overhauling our inquiries unit—the 1-800 telephone service—to address the issues raised by this committee following the last general election. There are three elements to our approach: a focus on self-service answers obtainable on our website; a natural speech interactive voice response telephone system that can answer basic questions from electors—two-thirds of the questions are very basic; and, for complex questions, the routing of callers to an agent either at headquarters or at the appropriate returning office. By the way, the Elections Canada website receives 2,800 visits a day now, day in, day out.

We have completed focus group research concerning the major theme for the next advertising campaign. This is with the ad agency that we selected through our competitive process. The results have been shared with the advisory committee of political parties. In May, I stated that I would extend an invitation to you, seeking your involvement in the process. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you would advise me on how this committee intends to proceed in this regard. This is your opportunity for a kick at that cat.

We commissioned studies to help us understand why voter turnout has been dropping. This research has indicated that youth voter participation has dropped more sharply than for other groups. This is not a major revelation, but it is an important one. We will be using this information to help us design and focus our ad campaigns on youth and to develop other measures to address this trend. We are already considering the potential for online voter registration and changes to our public education, as well as our outreach activities.

[Translation]

My final focus concerns redistribution. The readjustment of electoral boundaries by the 10 independent federal boundaries commissions is on track.

Á (1130)

Public hearings have been completed in eight provinces and will be completed in Ontario on December 10, and in Quebec on December 17.

The commissions have received more than 1300 submissions in response to their proposals, that is, more than double the number in 1994 (641 submissions) and more than the submissions of 1987 which is a more regular exercise, because in 1994, we had Bill C-69, which abolished the process, and although it was not passed, it nevertheless distorted the situation, in my view. One hundred and twenty-four members of the House of Commons and three senators have appeared or will appear before the current commissions. As far as I know, all the members of Parliament and senators who wished to make an individual presentation before a commission have been able to do so. No one has been turned down.

I expect to receive and transmit the reports for Newfoundland and Labrador to the Speaker of the House of Commons before Christmas. The other eight reports will be transmitted to the Speaker before the end of January and the end of March 2003, according to the current schedule. It is my understanding that a subcommittee of this committee has been set up to review the reports, at least according to the Hill Times.

To review briefly, once a report has been referred to the committee, objections may be filed with the clerk of the committee within 30 calendar days from the day the report is referred to the committee.

Following this, the committee must consider the objections and return each report to the Speaker within 30 sitting days after the expiration of the date for filing objections. The Speaker then refers the report back to me for transmittal to the appropriate commission. The commission has 30 calendar days to consider objections raised by members and to finalize its report, which it will again return to me for transmittal to the Speaker. Once I have transmitted the last report to the Speaker, I send a draft representation order to the minister responsible for elections, in this case, Mr. Boudria. The draft representation order must be proclaimed within five days. There is no choice about this.

I have included with this text a summary of opportunities that were provided to members of this committee to participate fully in the redistribution process, in response to comments made by Mr. Saada at one of my earlier appearances, or at least at one of your previous meetings.

I would also like to remind the committee that the Elections Canada website (www.elections.ca)—there is nothing more direct—is continuously updated regarding redistribution and contains full information on redistribution, including proposals and downloadable maps showing changes to electoral districts proposed by the commissions. This will continue during the next stage and during the final stage. The maps will be updated as things proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to offer you this brief overview of last year's performance and an update on our current priorities. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Would your colleagues care to add anything?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No.

[English]

The Chair: First of all, the subcommittee on riding boundaries was mentioned. We're supposed to receive nominations of members of the subcommittee. Some parties have responded, and some have not. The clerk will in fact phone your offices to be sure, because we need the names of potential members of that subcommittee as soon as we can get them.

The second thing, Mr. Kingsley, is that I want to thank you for your response from your last meeting with us, and for supplying further information to Stéphane Bergeron, who, you'll notice, is here. The committee appreciates receiving that.

The third thing is that someone said Dick Proctor is here. Why don't you come sit over here, if you would, Dick?

Colleagues, I have a list. I have Dale Johnston, Guy St-Julien, Pierre Brien, Jacques Saada, and Yvon Godin.

Á (1135)

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Kingsley.

You are saying you have electors assigned geographically and by poll. I'm wondering if an elector can access your website to find out what poll it is that they're actually assigned to.

You also mentioned 2,800 hits a day on your site. Are people contacting that site to find out what poll they are actually in?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The feature you're talking about, sir, will be available for the next general election, as of March 31, 2003. That's our plan, but it's not available right now. You cannot go to our site to find out where you vote.

This is one of those elements—and I think this is where you picked that up—for which we will want.... This was one of the most common questions asked during the election. We receive many phone calls and they block the lines. We will therefore be putting up our site address and will be telling them they can go directly to our site to find out where they vote. So it's a feature that is coming, but it's not yet available.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It will tell the elector what poll they reside in and where their polling station will be.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That's right.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Will it tell them anything else?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Not really, no. Not at this stage.

Á (1140)

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay, that's great. I think that will be a feature that will be well used. If it can be accessed on-line, it's a far better system than trying to get somebody on the telephone.

You also stated that as of October 15, 90% of potential electors are listed on the register, and close to 83% of all electors are listed at their correct address. That has to be under the present boundaries.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Aren't those tremendously low percentages when you consider that we're just a little over two years past a general election? What is the reason for those numbers being so low? I could understand them being that low, and maybe even lower, if these were redistribution numbers. Since these are ones we've had at least two elections on, though, why are those numbers that low?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The main difficulty that we face is the time lag that occurs between an address change notification for a driver's licence to an update on the register. That is one difficulty.

The other difficulty that we face is that the update sources that we have are not update sources to which Canadians are automatically faithful. By that, I mean that if you change your address, you may decide—or you may not even make a decision—not to notify the driver's licence people. You're going to wait until something happens and it's convenient for you to do so. It is not something to which all Canadians attach the highest priority.

So we get caught with those two timeframe delays. In terms of processing, that creates the issue. It also allows me to make a point, although I don't want to use up too much time here because I know you want to get through with your questions.

With the register, revision during the election is essentially four to five times as big, in terms of process, as it is when we used to go door-to-door. We're going to try to reduce that, but with that system, we're not going to achieve the same as we did door-to-door in the old days for a while yet.

The Chair: You have another minute and a half left.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Good.

While we're talking percentages, what would be the optimum percentage? What would you aim for as a target and say that it's as good as we can get?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Frankly, when we get to 90% at the right address, we will have achieved what is maximal under a computerized system in which people don't have a legal obligation to notify us directly. We might be able to improve that further—and this is a guess at this time—when we do allow people to update their data directly on our website. That's not going to be possible for a while yet, though, because there's a question about the authenticity of whoever is at the other end of the computer. We have to solve that issue first.

The Chair: Guy St-Julien, Pierre Brien, Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, and Rob Anders.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mention your website. I know that an advertising insert was distributed in newspapers on August 31 of this year. Every time I write you letters, you reply that the 10 federal electoral boundary commissions were independent of Elections Canada. On October 9, you told me that independence was a fundamental component of the federal redistribution process.

I find it strange, Mr. Kingsley, that the name Elections Canada was mentioned on the insert distributed in August about the 2004 redistribution. That is a significant intervention, and I will explain why. When I saw that, I immediately sent for the Canada Gazette. It does not set out exactly what people wishing to testify had to do. First of all, you say it is the 1985 act: 75 ridings and 7 million people. That is the first process. However, on page 2 of the Canada Gazette, there is a reference to tradition. Quebec is broken down into three regions: 31 ridings north of the St. Lawrence, 26 south of it and 18 on the Island of Montreal. There is not even any mention of a tradition in the commission's rules. The rules talk about: the commission, the act, the comments noted in the...

I know that your role is to support the commission, and I want to know exactly what happened. One of your employees went to the commission with a software prepared by Elections Canada. It gave the commission directives as to how to divide Quebec into 75 ridings. Every time I ask the commission some questions—and I have here a letter dated November 14, signed by Mr. Despatie—I am told that the commission is asking Elections Canada to prepare for me a list of the names and all the locations in Abitibi--Baie James-- Nunavik. I am also told that the commission has asked Elections Canada to assure me in writing that the changes required in 14 municipalities in Nunavik... Might it have forgotten to do that? Many things have also been forgotten in the Canada Gazette.

My question is this. I have been told that the population of the riding of Abitibi is 94,542. I have asked for the specific population of specific locations in the riding. We are referred to Internet sites. I would like to know what role is played by Mr. Noël Larose. Every time we appear before a commission, we are told that he is a geographer. That is not true. I have checked his curriculum vitae; he is not an accredited geographer, he is a statistician.

I want to know why you dictate to the commission how to determine electoral boundaries and population with a software prepared by you and Statistics Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, you have something less than two minutes for that. And by the way, that's within reason.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we do not dictate anything. We made available to commissions a software that was developed. We offered members of this community an opportunity to attend a demonstration of the software. Some committee members and members of Parliament from various parties came to see how the software worked. It determines boundaries according to the requirements set out in the act. The quotient was set in accordance with the act. This is a formula that is included in the provisions of the act on redistribution and the commissions must make an effort to comply with it. Elections Canada did not impose anything. We are talking about individuals who are judges in Canada or who have been judges and understand what a statute is. These are individuals who can read the act and behave accordingly, with the full independence provided by the act.

The Chief Electoral Officer and his employees cannot dictate guidelines to commissions, and I can assure you that they do not do so.

Á (1145)

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I only have a few seconds left, so I'll be brief. Where is the tradition outlined in section 51.1 of the Constitution Act, 1987, or in section 18 of the 1985Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act? Where is it written? It has to come from somewhere. Elections Canada is the one which...

[English]

The Chair: Is there any reply?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With regard to that issue, Mr. Chairman, I had invited members of this committee to come to a meeting where we dealt with historical precedence. All the commissioners were there. The meeting was held in a downtown hotel and commissioners had the opportunity to learn about the process, various definitions and the precedents for boundary readjustment. It was a three-day meeting and some members of this committee even came and took part in our discussions.

[English]

The Chair: Pierre Brien, Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rob Anders, and the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I don't want to name any specific situations. We can talk about the general situation later on, but I'm not so sure that the permanent voter registry has really improved the situation as much as we are led to believe because of the many problems which arose in two Quebec ridings where by-elections were held. For instance, on one street, the people living in one house were registered with different polling stations. There were many problems. This riding had already had a lot of problems during the previous election. The situation does not seem to have improved. And since it was a by-election, that would have given you even more time to make sure everything went well.

During the last federal election, several ridings were extremely frustrated because of the poor quality of information and the fact that many people were not registered in the right place. By-elections were held two years later, but I don't feel that things have improved significantly.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, there has been improvement. I've gone over the figures for the by-elections; it's something we follow up every day. I know full well that problems were reported to the returning officer, and to myself, with regard to one riding in particular. However, in that specific case, the basic information was much more accurate than was the case at the beginning of the election of 2000. Nevertheless, I am fully aware of the fact that there are still 1,800 outstanding cases involving addresses, which is partly due to the fact that some people want to keep their former address. So it's more difficult to make the necessary changes in those cases. I don't blame them for their attachment to these symbols, all I'm saying is that it might be a reason why mistakes were made. Other mistakes were also made, less significant than others, but we won't know until the next federal election whether the new system has really solved most problems.

Let me assure you that many mistakes were corrected or will be after the current exercise with returning officers which I mentioned earlier and which began in May 2002.

What's important to remember is that we have a very close relationship with the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec and we are constantly updating our system based on Quebec's and our own updates. I have asked my staff whether it would be possible to conduct a comparative analysis of both complete registries to see if there are still any discrepancies. If there are, perhaps we can then finally solve all of Quebec's address-related problems.

Á (1150)

Mr. Pierre Brien: You will have an interesting case, since there was a by-election in the same ridings some time ago. You will be able to make some comparisons in the ridings I'm talking about, in the Berthier region, for example.

We know that during a general election, you have less time to deal directly with problems yourself, and so it comes down to the competence of the local returning officers. There are some major quality problems in that area. I know that you will tell me that you are not responsible for appointing them.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That is not what I am going to tell you. When a returning officer does not perform well, I write to the minister responsible and I recommend that a replacement be found.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does he listen to you?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I will be able to tell you that the next time I see you. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will also raise it with you next time.

I would like to understand something in the process regarding...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...of the map. You said that when you transmit the proposed order at the end, it must be adopted within five days. Does that mean that the government cannot make any changes, that it receives it and can only proclaim it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Exactly; the act is clear on that point.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Now that you have received all the reports, can you make any changes as you prepare the order, or...?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Absolutely not.

Mr. Pierre Brien: No?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Despite what some people may think, I am really just a “glorified” post office. In fact, I am just a “glorified” mailbox.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rob Anders, the chair, Michel Guimond, Guy St-Julien, and Dick Proctor.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank Mr. Kingsley and his team for the answers that they have given today in response to questions I had asked earlier.

I have a number of questions, and they deal with the readjustment of electoral boundaries. The act in question comes under federal jurisdiction; it therefore applies uniformly across the country, is that not right? In fact, I find that the act has been interpreted quite differently from province to province. So I would first like to know who decided how the act was to be interpreted in the readjustment work. I have other questions, but I'll ask them one at a time.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Each commission interprets the act as it sees fit. As Chief Electoral Officer—and I would point out that this is the second time I have had the opportunity to support their efforts—I took the following steps: I called a meeting for the first time of all the commissioners appointed at that time. I believe that only one or two of the 30 commissioners were absent; there are 10 chairpersons and 20 members, for a total of 30 commissioners.

We spent two and a half days dealing with all the issues, so that there was open discussion on the various interpretations. After that, it is up to them to interpret the act for the province in which they are responsible for readjustment. It is up to them to interpret the provisions on the basis of the values underlying the process in their province.

Mr. Jacques Saada: To use your own terms, I'd like to talk about the “glorified” post office. There are some things about it that are bothering me. First of all, if the legislation is interpreted differently from one region to another—and here, I am not talking about figures, but application of the spirit of the legislation—then can we say that the exercise is genuinely democratic?

Next, I would like to talk about the criteria which you have cited. Some of us took part in the exercise which over three days gave us two or three hours in which to participate in the process. I'm convinced that people have brought up the issue, since the main objective was to see which criteria should be used to establish the electoral maps.

We could not set aside the 1991 Supreme Court decision, which was extremely clear on the fact that not only demographics but also the community of interests and historical development were important criteria. I would like to know how it is that the provinces, which took part in the same meetings, training sessions and brainstorming sessions, and are using the same legislation, have managed to interpret the criteria in such fundamentally different ways.

Here is my question. The lawmakers' intent—not only federally but also in many provinces, where the situation is fairly similar—allows a 25% diversion from the statistically established average, so that factors other than demographic can be taken into account as well. Here, I would like to stress that I want to understand the process. Pursuant to what authority can a province or provincial commission legitimately target approximately 10%, if possible approximately 5%, and yet find itself in a position where two-thirds of Quebec ridings stand at around 3 per cent? How do we end up with that kind of result when we have applied the spirit of the legislation, the spirit of the lawmaker, as well as the 1991 Supreme Court decision relating to those criteria?

I would also have one last question.

Á (1155)

[English]

The Chair: You have less than one minute for your reply.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Why is Quebec the only province in which the commission decided to reduce the name of every riding to its simplest form for administrative planning reasons, when no other provincial commission felt the need to do the same thing, if I am not mistaken?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, you are asking me to square the circle. The exercise is a democratic one, because it makes it possible for commissions to interpret the legislation on the basis of established criteria. The interpretation will undoubtedly vary from one province to another. The legislation allows a variance of plus or minus 25% for this very reason.

Yes, there were discussions on the community of interests and criteria, but nobody has the centralized authority that makes it possible to impose a single point of view. But we are dealing with people who are extremely responsible, judges or former judges in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is something I would like to suggest. I have suggested to the commissions that we organize a meeting after the exercise is complete, to see whether we or participants could bring some improvement to bear on the process for next time. We are not too late for next time.

[English]

The Chair: This has to be very brief anyway. We're already well over his time. I regret that, but please continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If the committee wants to join with us in that effort, I would be very pleased to do so.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, I'll put you back on the list if I can.

Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rob Anders, the chair, Michel, Guy St-Julien, and Dick Proctor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Kingsley, thank you for your presentation.

I have a great deal of respect for judges, and you said—I believe three times—that they are people of integrity, who should know what they are doing. I don't want to offend anyone, but I should point out that I went so far as asking the commission in New Brunswick to resign. I'll tell you why I did that. I don't want to take too much time because we do not have much left, but this is important.

The problem today, Mr. Kingsley, is that you are ready to put this off for 10 years. When I appeared before the commission, I was told that the primary rule was the number of people, and that the discrepancy between the official number and the real number of persons should not be over 10%, and should preferably be 5 per cent. I do not agree with the commission's interpretation, even if it consists of judges and lawyers. If that is rule number 1, then the rest is worthless. The community of interests is not even being considered.

In my area, their proposal takes francophone electors and puts them into an anglophone riding. They drowned the francophones out. The whole community has been turned upside down. Some 10 briefs were presented in the region by all parties, by all villages and communities, and nothing is working as it should.

At the meeting, the commission told me publicly that rule number 1 was the figures. That is the rule, and since they are judges, they can interpret it. I said that the figures were not the number 1 rule, that they were there so that they could be adjusted. I believe that is the number 1 rule. We want people to vote; that's the whole point. As you said at the beginning of your presentation, we want people to be able to exercise their democratic rights. In my region, people are saying that they won't even bother, they will not even vote if this is how things are. That's what people in my area are saying. I think this is very important. We should at least have the decency to tell people that rule number 1 is not numbers, but the interests of Canadians. We have established a 25% rule, and the rest of you can just adjust . What did the commission say? That Ottawa had directed it to come as close to 5% or 10% as possible. Is this true?

What steps could be taken to change the commission's attitude, if commission members believe that the directive comes from Ottawa? In my opinion, we can still mop up the spilled milk. Otherwise, this is going to be a 10-year mistake.

Â (1200)

[English]

The Chair: When you refer to a directive from Ottawa, do you mean from Mr. Kingsley's office, or do you mean it in some more general way?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We don't know. There was a meeting, and there were directives. [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. We work together... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. You have the right to interpret that as you wish.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. I understand. I'm sorry I asked for information.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, there were no directives from my office. How could my office have given directives on this? The commission would just have told me to mind my own business. These aren't newcomers who don't know what they are doing. So I really don't know what these directives from Ottawa are.

You also said that it was too late. But we are just at the proposal stage, and that is just the first stage. You appeared, and the commission heard you. Let us see how the commission responds, and what the next proposals look like. Then, as the chairman pointed out, you will have another opportunity as members to put forward your views. If your views have not been taken into account, you will have another opportunity to put them forward.

I would remind the committee that Bill C-69, which died on the Order Paper during a previous session in 1994, contained excellent suggestions. That is why I would like to do a post-mortem, even if the results would be apparent only next time, since we cannot do a post-mortem this time, because the process is already under way.

Canada's new electoral boundaries are difficult to absorb because they are major changes and because the boundaries are changed only once every 10 years. But people move around in this country. What can I say? Riding boundaries must keep up. We cannot both change the ridings and keep the ridings; that would not make any sense.

So members have written to me and asked me to leave their ridings alone, because everything was fine. I know that everything in many ridings is fine, but that is not how the process works. That is why there is an exercise where all boundaries are redrawn. Some ridings are currently at 50, 60 and 80 per cent above the average, and in some cases even more, I believe.

Mr. Yvon Godin: My riding boundaries have not been changed, but my riding is affected nonetheless. The commission should be open to changing its proposal again. According to Elections Canada regulations, the Speaker of the House of Commons appoints people to the commission. This is because the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by members of all political parties in the House, and should therefore be independent. What process can we use if we want to contest the way in which the Speaker went about this, because... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]?

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, I'll have to wind it up, because you are well over your time.

Do you have enough to comment on, Mr. Kingsley?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I don't know what mechanism there is under the legislation to contest appointments by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan, Rob Anders, the chair, Michel Guimond, Guy St-Julien, and Dick Proctor.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Kingsley.

I want to talk a little bit about the coming into force of the redistribution. For very obvious reasons, we want to try to avoid a situation in which the new boundaries are known prior to an election under the old boundaries. I've heard that July 2004 is the date. If the election is before that, it's held with the old boundaries; if it's after that, then it's with the new boundaries.

I guess I'm asking about the mechanisms. I realize a lot of this stuff is legislated in terms of time, but how solid is that 2004 date? If you look at the political landscape, the potential for an election prior to 2004 is certainly there, which means you are going to be pursuing dual tracks. You're making sure you're ready in case that happens, and then you're switching over to the new boundaries if it doesn't. That would appear to be problematic.

I don't know if there's any solution, but one might be to try to speed this thing up, if possible, to minimize the chances of getting into that unfortunate situation.

Â (1205)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I appreciate that question, sir.

In terms of speeding it up, we're now into as speeded up a mode as we can be. Initially, I asked the chief statistician to hurry up in giving me his numbers, because based on the previous experience, they had come later in the process. He speeded up as much as he could.

In terms of the schedule that has been shared with you, there's nothing we can do to speed it up further. We're expecting for all of us to know what the ridings are by mid-July 2003.

Mr. Joe Jordan: On the issue of the one year after gazetting the order, could we go to six months? What's the argument for one year?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If I were the advisory committee of political parties and I asked them what they thought of abbreviating that one year to six months, I would have a revolution on my hands. It's in the law now. But if I asked the political parties, they would say, “Well, you're absolutely crazy”. If I asked you and you started thinking about it, you might also wonder—as a future candidate for re-election—whether six months was enough.

In terms of all these doubts, we're all going to be eating them together—even for one year. I'm going to be on two scenarios; you're going to be on two scenarios; and the parties are going to be on two scenarios. And there's nothing we can do about it under the present law.

The Chair: Rob Anders, then the chair, Michel Guimond, Guy St-Julien, Dick Proctor, and Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just following up on a question that my colleague asked. He asked what the ideal was, and Mr. Electoral Officer, you said 90%.

I'm looking at page 11 of the performance report. It says: “...we have raised the percentage of electors listed in the Register at their correct addresses to 78%, or 2% higher than our target”. So that would indicate to me that your target was 76% rather than 90%. Is this true?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: At that time, yes. The question dealt with what was the maximum ideal that we thought we could achieve. That's what my answer was at 90%.

At this time, I'm saying that we're not at 76% but at 83%, which is a very favourable situation—if you look at it strictly in statistical terms.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, on page 11 of your notes this morning, you also asked what the major theme for the next advertising campaign should be. I think it should be changed. I'll note that. And on page 16...

A voice: Wholesale change?

Mr. Rob Anders: Wholesale change. Holus-bolus.

On page 16 of your performance report, I note that you have planned spending and then total authorities, and then actual spending through most of the document. I find it very interesting, for example, that you have “expenses of elections” of about $22 million under your planned spending on page 16, and your total authorities were close to $40 million—or $39.3 million. Out of curiosity, why is there such a discrepancy between the planned spending and the total authorities?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Madame Vézina to answer.

Ms. Janice Vézina: The budget prepared for the year—which is the planned spending—was prepared prior to the 2000 general election being called. In other words, we did not anticipate the election being held. Therefore, the budget reflected the status quo leading to the next election for that fiscal year.

Of course, when the election came, it changed our plans as to what we would be doing in 2001-02. Part of that involved the cleanup of the election. It involved the start of redistribution earlier than we had anticipated, and it involved a return to being ready. We had an empty warehouse, so we had to restock material. So that's why there was a difference between what we spent and what we had planned to spend.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Jean-Pierre, if I could, I'd like to ask you about two quite different things. The second one is the decline in the youth vote. That may be at the end—if we have time—and it's largely a question of information.

But the other one is the question of rural ridings. I'm not asking you to be legalistic about it, but to think aloud about the particular problems of rural ridings. What's happening is that people are moving into the cities. We all know that. The rural areas are critical to the country, but they tend to have been eroded. Given that rural ridings are, on average, smaller than the urban ridings, I accept the fact that in the statistical sense rural people are better represented.

But it seems to me that the parts of the act that deal with community of interest, geographical association, and historical association become particularly important in rural areas. I do accept that there will be many more ridings that are simply brought together with just enough people so that they can have a riding. But it seems to me that, wherever you can demonstrate, or wherever there is something that defines, a community of interest—for example, a natural centre, a school, a hospital, a business, or a highway that people use, or, by the way, a river that divides two communities—it should be given more consideration in rural areas than in urban areas.

Now, in an urban area, if it's some blocks in the city and it isn't quite a natural community of interest, they can in fact go over the road to another member of Parliament's office and compensate in that way. But in the rural areas they can't. So my question is, can you think of any way in which the matter of community of interest—where it applies—could be given more emphasis in rural ridings than in the case of urban ridings?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think the answer to that lies, in part, with the answer I gave to the rural caucus of one of the parties. They had asked to meet with me, which I did. I think it should be part of this post-mortem for a report to be tabled in Parliament to consider indicating which parts of Canada are considered rural—and the number of ridings that would be attached to them—so that the commissions would have this as walking instructions. Otherwise, I think we're going to be faced with this conundrum. In 10 years' time, my successors will be faced with this conundrum forever. They cannot interpret community of interest to be so broad as to go beyond 25%—and yet there may be a need. Canadian parliamentarians may think that it's worthwhile preserving that.

In terms of number of seats, I suspect that it wouldn't be all that major. I think it's something worth considering. But it will require that kind of consideration by Parliament.

The Chair: Just for the record, I could conceive of a very, very large rural riding in terms of area, which is also very large in terms of numbers, and which is better than a smaller number of rural ridings, simply because of community of interest.

On the question of the youth vote, I know there has been a decline in interest in all the major democracies in the voting process. It has almost been ascribed entirely to people under the age of 30. I've seen the figures for this.

Do you know about something that's called “Kids Vote”, or something of that type, which is in some states in the United States? They have ballot boxes for children, literally all under the voting age. The children come and cast their votes—hopefully with their families—and on counting night, both ballots are opened. Obviously the children's vote has no significance, except, by the way, that they announce the result. I wonder if you, or your office, have heard about that, or if you've been following it all. It's one of these things where, quite early on, you can get children excited in the voting process.

We have about 50 seconds.

Â (1215)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: We are aware of that program, and we're going to be following it up as a result of your intervention, to see what kinds of results were achieved.

But we're also involved in things that we want to do for the next general election, to attract the new electors that will have come on board since the last general election and those who missed the call the first time. As well, right now we're conducting a trial or pilot project with the chief electoral officer of Newfoundland to see how we can reach people through the school network more intensely than we have in the past, respecting provincial jurisdiction in this respect where those provinces are open.

So I'd like to come back to the committee to tell you more about what we're going to do with respect to kids.

The Chair: By the way, I do appreciate what you had in your report about the youth vote. I would personally be interested in this “Kids Vote” thing; I just read one article about it.

Thank you very much.

It's Michel Guimond, Guy St-Julien, Dick Proctor, Marlene Catterall, and then Werner Schmidt.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Kingsley, I will put my three questions at once. That is the best way of getting intelligent answers.

First of all, I would like to know the name of the advertising agency selected through the open and competitive selection process.

Secondly, your Performance Report does not set out the requests you have made for improvements to the voter information card, particularly in apartment buildings where packages of 32 or 64 cards were left in the lobby, in bags containing advertising flyers, or with bulk advertising that gets thrown away. The cards could have been picked up by anyone and everyone. You seemed aware of the need to improve VIC security, but your report makes no mention of the issue.

My third and last question is the same as Mr. Saada's. There are rumours circulating among members from all parties to the effect that the chief electoral officer got his revenge with riding names. It is being said that the chief electoral officer is not happy when members are added... In any case, you should eradicate the rumours about new riding names that fail to take the community of interests into account. I am convinced that you will tell us that you had nothing to do with the riding names, and that, if the name selected by the commission does not suit us, we can introduce a private member's bill, as we do now when a riding name does not reflect the community of interests.

I will end with a comment about names. I have already had the opportunity to make you aware of this unofficially during a discussion we had in a corridor. The corridor was 18,000 feet up, it was an airborne corridor. I did not think we had had an official discussion. Though it was a substantive discussion, it was not official when it came to our respective roles. I was expecting you to mention it in some way during your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would be very glad to eradicate any rumours, and I appreciate the fact that you told me there is one. I hope it is the only rumour. I will eradicate it immediately: I have nothing to do with the names, and I'm not interested in them. If you don't like the names, take it to the commissions. And if you still don't like the names once those are finally established, tell the subcommittee about it. The subcommittee will tell me. What I'm interested in is making as few changes as possible because they cost our taxpayers money.

Â (1220)

Mr. Michel Guimond: Just a moment, please. You said that we should speak up if we don't like the new riding name. But then we get caught up in the system. We get caught as soon as we say we don't like the new riding. And we like the new name even less. I'm not going to start by telling the commission that I don't like the riding name. I don't like the riding boundaries to begin with. In Quebec, 73 of the 75 ridings will be changed.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That reasoning completely discredits the rumour. It implies that I had nothing to do with it.

As for the company whose services were contracted, it was Cossette Communications, which is the agency...

Mr. Michel Guimond: They are a major contributor to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Absolutely not. First, the process was managed by the Chief Electoral Officer and nobody else within government. Second, the agency must be politically impartial, which means that it is not allowed to contribute to political parties. I am obviously the one in charge of the process and, in fact, that same agency was hired by Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer.

Third, with regard to the information card, I mentioned it the last time I appeared before the committee to explain what I was doing. I have to honestly say that I do not remember what my response was. Therefore, I would like to review it. If my answer was not complete, I will complete it at that time.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Just to clarify the point about the names, but not the boundaries, after we've received the commission's report, the committee could make a recommendation about a name change. By the way, if the commission didn't respond to that, we could go the private member's route here in the House of Commons, as we've done before. Am I right? That's on the name.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: On the name, yes. That is something we should review as well should there be a post-mortem, whether or not there should be a law that allows a change of name once they're proclaimed.

The Chair: Next is Guy St-Julien, followed by Dick Proctor and Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned a three-day meeting which took place in Ottawa. As far as I know, very little time was dedicated to the committee. I would like to know when the meeting was held and whether the same judge is still with the Electoral Boundaries Commission or whether he was replaced at a later date by the one from Quebec.

My second question regards Mr. Larose's software. Can members have access to it? Can I go to your office and take a look at it? I will tell you why I am asking this question. Every time I ask something of the commission, I am told to refer to Elections Canada for a list and other things. So, it seems I would be better off meeting representatives from Elections Canada to get answers to my questions, because I have to testify on December 12. It is November 21 and I have just received the letter.

You spoke about a gap with regard to the electoral quota: some ridings are at 50%. Let me give you the example of the riding of Témiscamingue in northern Quebec. It used to be that the riding of Abitibi--Baie James--Nunavik was at minus 2% whereas the riding of Témiscamingue was minus 17.10%. The commission reversed this situation and declared that the riding for Abitibi--Baie James--Nunavik should be at minus 17% and the riding of Témiscamingue at minus 2%. The figures were reversed and no one in northern Quebec understands why. We represent over half of the province of Quebec. It was at minus 2% and minus 17% and under the commission's new proposal, it still stands at minus 17% and minus 2%. To substitute the north for the south is one thing. I wonder...

[English]

The Chair: And half the province of Quebec would be three-quarters of the province of Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have two last questions. We have the right to access Elections Canada's information. During your three-day meeting, you probably spoke with the commissioners and others who were there. I requested some information from the commission and was told that the Electoral Boundaries Commission fell under the Access to Information Act and that it had asked for an independent study to receive a legal opinion in that regard. They don't know. I've been trying to get information, but was told that the commission would ask an outside organization to give me an answer. How long will that take?

You also talked about rural ridings. I consulted with a lawyer to discuss the distinction between municipal and rural ridings. I have here a list of seven legal precedents. I'll give you a copy and would like to get the French versions of the decisions: Dixon v. British Columbiain 1989, Lac La Biche (Town) v. Alberta in 1993 and so on. And while we're at it, I'd also like to meet with you.

Â (1225)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The conference with the commissioners was held in Ottawa from March 13 to the 15th. The judge who was there had to leave for health reasons and was replaced. The two other commissioners were also present and are still working in that capacity.

As for the software, let me repeat, because I mentioned this earlier, that the members here have always been allowed and are still allowed to see how it works. Some have already taken a look. I think four or five Canadian Alliance members came to our offices for that very reason. I have also demonstrated the software for the advisory committees of political parties. The Liberal Party came by to see for itself. Mr. St-Julien, you are more than welcome to come by anytime.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I surely will.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As for access to information, the commission is an independent body and has the sole right to determine whether it falls under the Access to Information Act. It's not up to me to decide; it's up to the commission to do so. That's why it is seeking a legal opinion.

I don't remember your...

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The question was on legal precedents with regard to rural and municipal ridings. There were a number of rulings and I will provide you with a list to see whether you can get me those rulings in French.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Fine. Just give it to me and I will gladly have it sent to the commission for its consideration. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Dick Proctor, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to the commissioner, Mr. Kingsley.

You said repeatedly here today that there were no directives given to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the various provinces. I just want to set the stage by saying that in the previous boundaries commission, as you will know, in Saskatchewan I believe there was a combination of rural-urban boundaries in 8 of the 14 ridings--4 in Saskatoon and 4 in Regina. At the first meeting of the boundaries commission in Saskatoon this time around, the judge, in his opening statement, said these rural-urban combinations hadn't worked, although he didn't provide any rationale for that, and therefore that was his justification that the commission had not recommended a combination of urban-rural in this round.

There were 30 interveners in Saskatchewan. Almost all of them zeroed in on the fact that the boundaries that had been proposed were totally unworkable, that the rural ridings were now huge and there was no community of interest. There are strong rumours from very reliable sources, including one of the three commissioners, that now says we were directed by Elections Canada not to recommend rural-urban combinations.

So I'd like your response to that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If Elections Canada is me, I never said that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So where would it come from?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have no idea. I'm sure there are rumours. I don't know where rumours come from.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But, Mr. Kingsley, we've heard from several sources today, totally independent one from the other, of these things having happened at various commissions. Mr. Saada said it, Mr. Godin said it, and there are other people who said it. Elections Canada says no, it never happened, couldn't have happened; we never did it. Well, they're coming from different parts of the country, and it's not a conspiracy.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: No, it isn't, not on my part, and not on yours. I have done nothing with the commissions except provide them with a forum to explore together what the law meant, in order to improve the functioning of the commissions this time around compared to the last time. That's all I did. I am proud of having done so, and I'm proud of the fact that I've provided no directive whatsoever to any of my employees concerning anything they should say or do to the commissions that would intimate any direction of any kind whatsoever. I don't even know what the proposals are that have been made by the commissions.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

Let me come to something that I think is even more fundamental to our democracy, and that is the fact that there are indications that there were names for electoral boundary commissioners forwarded by political ministers in at least three provinces. This, I think, goes to the heart of what Canadians fervently want, which is a totally independent, apolitical operation.

You said earlier in answer to a previous question that you can't have any involvement in who Mr. Speaker recommends or doesn't, but surely to God, Elections Canada is one of the pillars that Canadians look to for assurance that there is going to be fair, independent, and non-partisan choices made on these.

So it's not so much a question as it is a plea. If you're going to do a post-mortem after this time, I think this is a question that has to be asked as to how we're going to avoid it. If you go back and read the debates for when these commissions were set up in the 1960s, it was to absolve ourselves from any kind of undue political interference by a government party or any other party. I just think this is wrong, wrong, wrong, I don't believe we've had those kinds of problems in the intervening 30-odd years that we have at this time.

Â (1230)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the nomination process, my office, as it did with the previous exercise, provided the names, not the CVs, of those members of academia who had indicated to us through our network of academics their interest in things redistribution. All I did was provide that list of names to the Speaker, a year ahead of the nomination process, I think.

I did so at the previous time, and the Speaker appreciated what I had done, and a number of those people were appointed. This time around, a number of the people were appointed as well. There's nothing else that takes place, as far as I am concerned, concerning the nomination process by the Speaker in the process.

With respect to the conference itself, sir, I retained the services of Professor John Courtney, one of Canada's experts, at the University of Saskatchewan, to help us guide those discussions at that conference. He is the one who helped devise the program for the conference with the commissioners. He is the guiding light behind all of that, because he has produced one of the best books on redistribution in this country.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor, do you want to comment?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

It's Marlene Catterall, Werner Schmidt, Jacques Saada, Pierre Brien, and then Yvon Godin.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I want to come back to one element of the performance report first, before going on. This is not a new question.

As you mentioned, 90% of the electoral list is a reasonable achievement. I think your total target is to have 92% of voters on the list.

As you know, my concern has been that without an enumeration certain groups of Canadians are more likely to drop off the list than the average voter population. I would like to know what research you have done to discover whether the 10% not on the list, or even not on the list at the right address, are overrepresentative of certain categories of Canadian voters.

I think I've raised this every time we've met since the installation of the register of voters.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I think you have, and with reason. It is a concern I continue to share. It's for that reason that the director of the list has been directed to provide a study program that will allow us to find out whether there are there people who are being disadvantaged, and what the socio-economic factors are.

What I will do is write to the committee to tell you what study is being undertaken--and this should occur within the next six months--so that we have a clearer idea of this in order not to have preconceived notions that are not borne out by the facts; or if they are borne out by the facts, that we do something to arrive at a program.

I will want to enjoin, once again, permanent members of academia to carry out that study, so that we have what I will call acceptable results. I will share those as well.

I will be coming to you to let you know what is happening, and if you wish to have input into the design of it as a result of my letter, I will be more than happy to welcome it.

Â (1235)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: All right. This is not a new issue. I cannot remember if it was referred to as a project to be undertaken in previous plans and priorities documents of the commission; however, I appreciate knowing that it's going to happen. I guess my question is, why has it not happened before now, when it's a question this committee has raised with you several times?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I'd like to come back to you to give you the answer to that. I haven't got it off the top of my head. There are a number of--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It does seem to me that at least once in dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer's plans and priorities report, Mr. Chair, there was a commitment made to have this work done.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There is a reason I can't put my finger on, and the people here are not able to provide it to me. I will come back and tell you that as well.

The Chair: I would appreciate it if you could.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Just as a side comment, the purpose of the performance report is to measure it against plans and priorities and commitments and projects to be undertaken.

Let me go to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. An issue came up at the commission hearing I attended and made a presentation at. I would appreciate your comments on whether it's something Parliament should be paying attention to. The issue was considering population expansion.

As you know, between elections we have ended up with ridings that are virtually unrepresentable to an equal extent when one riding has a 300,000 population and another has 105,000. Both cannot be getting the same level of representation from one elected representative.

During the course of the Ontario commission, the point came up that Parliament had at some point deliberately removed the ability to look at growth potential and anticipated growth in the commission's consideration of boundaries. The reason it was a concern is that the commission seems to be interpreting it to say that even if we can account for growth well within the 25% allowable variation, we still shouldn't even be looking at it.

I would appreciate your advice, if not now, then perhaps at a future meeting.

The Chair: If it is now, it has to be very short.

A voice:We'll send it. That's all right.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It isn't now.

The Chair: All right. Thank you. Like the others, we've appreciated your follow-up in the past and we would appreciate it again.

Werner Schmidt, Jacques Saada, Pierre Brien. Very quickly.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have three very quick, short technical questions, and thank you for coming. It's very good to have you here.

This is my first question. On what day do the new electoral boundaries come into effect?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It will be approximately on July 25, 2003, that the proclamation will be taken, and one year thereafter they come into effect. I say approximately because a commission may yet require a bit of an extension to its timeframe--a commission, no one else.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Who determines that date?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That date is in accordance with a calendar that must be followed under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. There is no choice about that date.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I didn't ask the question correctly. Who determines the July 25, 2003, date?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That again is a function of the law. There are so many days, as I explained in my presentation, for a committee to do this, there are so many days for this committee to respond, and so many days for the commission to respond to what you have said. Once that has expired, I also emphasized, there are only five days during which the proclamation order can be taken. So it's a working of the calendar, as stipulated in the statute.

Â (1240)

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I thought this was going to be a very short question, but I don't think it is.

The first of these reports will be coming in before Christmas, in December this year, and then the rest of these will be coming in hopefully before the end of March of next year. Now, as to the time lapse between the receipt of those to you, and I suppose they do come to you, when is the time lapse between them and the actual decision of reporting them to the respective committee, because that's an open number?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: May I ask Carol Lesage to respond, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. Carol Lesage: We expect the last reports for the largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, to be tabled by the week of March 24.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: And if they aren't?

Mr. Carol Lesage: If they aren't, then the end date will change. The date of July that we're talking about will change.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Precisely. So the thing is not determined by you. It's determined by the submission of the respective provinces. Is that correct?

Mr. Carol Lesage: Of course, yes, of the work of the commissions, and also the fact that when the reports are tabled, members have 30 days to file objections--

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I understand that part. When does this thing start? That's what I need to know, because everything else follows from that. Is that determined by statute as to when these have to be reported?

Mr. Carol Lesage: By statute, the commissions have one year to complete their reports. The year starts when they are established by proclamation. The proclamation was taken on April 16, 2002. So in theory they have until April 16, 2003, to file the reports, but the commissions are progressing well and reports will be tabled--

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's not my question. The question is that by statute the outside limit is April 16, 2002.

Mr. Carol Lesage: 2003.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: My apologies, yes, 2003. Therefore, the date of July 25, 2004, is a flexible date.

Mr. Carol Lesage: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay.

A voice: By how much?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, it would be a month or two.

This is my final question. What criteria are used in the commission's reporting on time? Could the commission delay until the last day, in this case April 16, 2003? What criteria are used to make sure that committee report comes in on time? And if the commission doesn't bring it in on time, and this is the statutory deadline, what happens?

Mr. Carol Lesage: A commission can request an extension. After the public hearings, if a commission reconsiders its proposals and prepares them into a report, and if it feels it won't have enough time after the one year that is given to it by statute, it can request an extension to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: For how long can that extension last? Is that an indefinite extension?

Mr. Carol Lesage: It can't exceed six months.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I see. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Werner, thank you.

Colleagues, I'm going to try to wind this up, although I still have a list. We have until 1 o'clock.

Next is Jacques Saada, then Yvon Godin, then Dick Proctor, and then a brief intervention from Guy St-Julian.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, there is not a shadow of a doubt that the witness did not interfere in the process, as he said. I take his answer at face value. I also take at face value the fact that the commissions conduct their work with great integrity and do the best they can. But that's not what my question is about.

Similar things have happened in different provinces and we don't seem to understand why. I am not questioning the good faith of those involved. Is it possible that in the course of the three-day meeting, the 10% figure was so present that everyone simply took it for granted? It's a very simple question: is there a record of the March meetings? Is there a written record of what was said and decided at the meeting?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: A summary of the meeting's deliberations was prepared and sent to each commission. As well, when people discussed numbers, the different commissions expressed different points of view. If a general opinion with regard to the process and a percentage emerged, it is quite possible that this stuck in people's minds after the meeting.

Â (1245)

Mr. Jacques Saada: The summary is a public document, isn't it? We can get it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes, it is available.

Mr. Jacques Saada: This means that if the document is available, if we consult it and realize that the 10% figure has some very real implications, then we'll have our answer. But if that's not the case, we will have to find elsewhere the answer to the question we're all obsessed with, which is why the gap went from 25% to 10% in several provinces without there having been... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...anywhere. That's what I want to know.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I told you what I thought of the document. If you don't find the answers your are looking for, perhaps you should look elsewhere if I can't help you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Could the committee get the document so we can all look at it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I would be happy, as always, to send you the document.

[English]

The Chair: It's Yvon Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I appeared before the Moncton Commission which told me that it had to abide by the law and respect the 10% figure, despite the changes. There was talk of a community of interests. Can language represent a common interest? We are on the Acadian Peninsula and the other part is anglophone. We even took our case to court. The commission said that it had settled the case of the Municipality of Saint-Louis by including it in Beauséjour--Petitcodiac. To which I replied that, indeed, it had done so, but that it had... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...on Acadie--Bathurst. I was asked whether we should not follow their example and take our case to court as well. I said, no, that's not what I said. So, it comes back to the community of interests.

A little earlier, when Mr. Guimond asked a question about the advertising firm, you said that there was a process in place whereby the agency was not allowed to have any political connections. Unless I'm mistaken, with regard to appointments, you said that you gave the Chief Electoral Officer a list of candidates for the commission.

Our chair said that in New Brunswick, it was the Liberal minister responsible for New Brunswick who put forward the names. Were one, two or three candidates from your list accepted?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I put forth 75 names and 4 were accepted.

As for the language issue, the Official Languages Commissioner was invited to the three-day meeting and participated in our discussions. She even gave a presentation on the Official Languages Act and the provisions on the redistribution process. You can read it for yourself in the summary.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Did the commissioner recommend that we take it under advisement? The member for Miramichi agrees with me. The riding of Miramichi has never elected a bilingual member, but part of the Acadian Peninsula was included in that very riding. Even the member for Miramichi thinks as I do that it doesn't make any sense. That's when we raised the issue of a community of interests, because the other side also had the same problem. They say the issue will be settled, but they are willing to include the same thing in their proposal.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As to what the commissioner said, rather than trying to interpret her words, I would prefer that she tell you herself what she said. I have tried not to interpret what others have said today. Three professors spoke to us on the matter of the community of interests; the commissioner and the former president of the Assembly of First Nations also spoke. There were all kinds of presenters. I would prefer that they tell you what they said with regard to the redistribution process.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to ask you a final question if I have time.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Could you give the chairman the list of recommendations you made?

Second, I would like your interpretation of something, if that is possible. The commission apparently has the right to change the name of a riding. Why change a riding's name? Take my riding of Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe. If Riverview is included in another riding, it makes sense for the commission to change my riding's name because Riverview is not in it anymore. But, in keeping with the spirit of the act, it does not make sense to change my riding's name if it still includes the Acadians and Bathurst and if everyone wants to keep the same name. No one wants to change it and people have told the commission to leave well enough alone. Three appointed persons from the south of the province should not be able to dictate what we call ourselves.

[English]

The Chair: On the matter of the Speaker, we're in your hands as to whether that's appropriate, Mr. Kingsley.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: As you know, my tendency is to always share everything with the committee. But I will find out if I am breaking any law on privacy of information before I act on that.

The Chair: It does deal with the Speaker.

Do you have anything to add? Is that enough?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have nothing more to add. What the member just said speaks for itself.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

It's Dick Proctor, Stéphane Bergeron, and then, very briefly, Guy St-Julien.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to pick up on a question Yvon was asking, to see if I understand it. Mr. Kingsley, you submitted 75 names to the Speaker and four were selected?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: That does not square with the quotes that were made in The Hill Times this summer, whereby the Speaker's office said they had asked for names from Elections Canada, and your office--I don't think it was you directly, but the record will indicate it was your office--said that was not the case, and no names were submitted.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: New applications were submitted. These are not people who applied to me to be members. I did not provide applications to the Speaker. I did what I did with the previous Speaker, and I will take two seconds to explain this further.

I maintain a list of every member of academia--we surveyed them across the land--who have an interest in electoral matters, so I can keep them abreast of the deliberations of this committee, for example, when bills are presented, so we foment interest by academia in the electoral process.

We have more than 600 names. They identified their areas of interest, so I can pinpoint those areas when I write to them or send them information. Of the 600, 75 indicated an interest in the redistribution process, so I just indicated that to the Speaker and provided him with the names. But they're not applications, and that's what the quote was.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just for clarification, does that proceed from your office to the Speaker, or does it go through, for instance, the House leader?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I write directly to the Speaker.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It goes directly to the Speaker.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It did in the previous instance, and it did in this instance as well.

Mr. Dick Proctor: There are some other issues I want to draw to people's attention and to ask about. We talked earlier about recent by-elections. Our staff continues to say the following: there are problems with split polls. They're not provided electronically; they're only in print. Some are done alphabetically, and others are done by address, which is difficult to interpret.

Elections Canada still has people in the wrong cities. For example, 56,000 people who reside in the city of Dartmouth are listed in Halifax, according to the October 15, 2002, information that you provided.

There are problems with formatting the list. I don't know why the sequence numbers beside the names are necessary. Our people say that they're confusing. If there's not a good reason to have them, we should eliminate them.

The final point is that for rural ridings we still have examples of rural route 5, and if you get into a large area, nobody in the world knows where John Smith or Jane Smith lives on rural route 5. So we're looking for better site location to try to figure out where these people reside.

You can answer none or all of them. I'm just bringing them to your attention.

Â (1255)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: With regard to rural ridings and the names of rural routes and so on, we are looking for answers to that as well, and we are making significant progress. If Canada Post can get a letter to them, I can get to them too. We're working with Canada Post to resolve all those issues.

With regard to sequence numbers, those are necessary in order for Elections Canada to be able to follow the electorate, so that when there's a change, it's easy to know that it is that elector. They are numbers that can vary from one election to another, because this committee has told us that they do not want the same number attached to individuals, for the protection of privacy.

With regard to Dartmouth and Halifax, we've provided the answer to the member of Parliament. This is due to the amalgamation of the two and people preferring to be tied to the old name as opposed to the new one. But insofar as letters getting to them, the assignment of polls, and everything else are concerned, for electoral purposes there are no problems, and this is what we have indicated. If there are problems, they are minuscule in number, and they're certainly not in the 56,000 category, I can assure you of that.

But I'm very thankful to the MP for having taken such an interest in the list. If we can get more MPs to take an interest in the list, it'll be an even better product for you and the other candidates at the election.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Stéphane Bergeron and then Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, under the act, the commissioners must respect certain criteria to redistribute electoral boundaries. Some criteria relate to demography and others are simply mathematical, and are based on the electoral quotient, which in turn is calculated under a formula prescribed in the act. As it was said earlier, there are also criteria which relate to feelings of belonging and historical evolution.

Based on the questions asked by Mr. Saada and other members, am I to understand that it is possible, or even probable, that at the end of the day, the ridings in some Canadian provinces will have been determined based on a mathematical formula, whereas others will have been based on constituents' feelings of belonging? In other words, at the end of the day, is it possible that the 10 provinces will be divided into ridings based on criteria which are not applied consistently, or which are applied differently, across the country?

Let me explain. If I follow your reasoning—and please correct me if I am wrong—in certain provinces, the gap could be, give or take, about 10 or 12%, whereas in other provinces, the gap would not exceed, give or take, 3%. Under the current legislation and in view of the freedom granted each of 10 commissions, such a situation would be possible.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: That already happened the last time boundaries were redistributed; so there is a precedent and the same thing may well happen again.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You may not have an answer to this question, but I will ask it anyway. When the objective is to have an electoral map for the whole country which, as far as possible, is uniform, is it not embarrassing that the current legislation allows for such different interpretations? As a result some commissions stress the feeling of belonging and the historical development, while others focus on demographic criteria in interpreting the population range that should apply for a riding.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The other side of the coin is that the fact that there may be different interpretations from one province to another based on the unique features of the various provinces may be considered as one of the strengths of the system. It is also one of the system's strengths. It may be seen as a strength.

The second point, if I might...

· (1300)

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Please proceed.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The second part of the answer is that I know of no province in which an electoral redistribution occurred without any hitches. And that has nothing to do with the federal government. People are always right to complain that the act is given different interpretations. That has happened more particularly in Quebec, at the time of the last redistribution. This will always happen. We might as well get used to it, because it will always be the case.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But I'm not talking here about hitches, Mr. Kingsley. I want to be properly understood.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I understood: you were talking about criteria.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I know that there will be hitches. Once we touch an entity with which people identify, obviously there will be some hitches. Whether federally or provincially, I agree with you that there will be hitches, but...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You were talking about criteria.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was talking about criteria, and you answered my question. I think your answer was interesting, and I was happy to hear that the unique features of each province will be taken into account. Our current problem is that, first of all, the commissioners are not necessarily appointed in light of the unique features of each province. I will not go into detail on this, because I do not want to repeat what Mr. Godin said. Moreover, the act is not interpreted so as to take into account the unique features of each province. Rather, it is interpreted by three appointed commissioners according to their personality and their view of the act and what an electoral map should be.

[English]

The Chair: A very brief reply, Mr. Kingsley.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And I would venture to add, Mr. Chairman, according to the values that these individuals hold and that apply to their province. At least I would like to hope this is the case and I would like to think it is.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You are quite right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Guy.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In your directives, Mr. Kingsley, at the meeting held in March...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There were no directives at the meeting in March, Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I apologize. There were some suggestions or explanations.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: There was an agenda, which was drawn up with various participants. I was not involved in that.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, being aware of the background of Nunavik voters, who deserve an electoral district... I go back to that because the commission has refused to hold hearings in Nunavik because it will go no further than the 50th parallel, whereas the province of Quebec extends all the way to the 61st parallel, to Hudson Strait. That means that the Inuit from Nunavik who want to testify at the hearings held on December 12 in Rouyn-Noranda will have to pay $3,400 for their plane ticket. In order to travel to Montreal, a two-way ticket costs $2,382.

I would like to ask you the following questions. The permanent Inuit residents from Nunavik do not have access to these hearings. Why is it that the commission has not been directed to hold hearings in northern Quebec? This is unthinkable.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: The commissions have published proposals in all of the province's newspapers and invited groups interested in appearing before the committee to let their intention be known so that the commission could meet with them.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: They have refused to do so, and I have letters confirming that this is so. They are refusing to do so. They are waiting to be sent a brief.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I am not aware of any refusals. The commissions can also receive presentations by e-mail, etc., because, obviously, it is not possible for them to travel to every place in the province. So, I would like to see...

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In this case, Elections Canada and the Electoral Boundary Commission have shown no respect whatsoever towards the Inuit of Nunavik. These people need to be shown some respect, Mr. Chief Electoral Officer. We need directives, but this is not being done.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: For the first time, I am going to object to what a member of Parliament has said.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Great. I agree.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: I have the deepest respect for the Inuit and the aboriginal people, and you will see this is so in the testimony given at these meetings.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We will see the results, Mr. Kingsley.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's enough.

Colleagues, I'd like to thank Jean-Pierre Kingsley and his colleagues for being here again. We do appreciate it.

We know you follow up very well on information that is to be provided to the committee, and we hope you'll do that. I also know you followed the commission hearings with great interest, and I hope you will follow with equal interest the hearings of our subcommittee on riding boundaries. I know you will, and you'll see the record of that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Of course we will, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay, and on behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for it.

Colleagues, the next meeting, on Monday, is the special steering committee on private members' business. My suggestion is, as I've mentioned, that the whips might consider sending someone with a particular interest in private members' business.

Our next regular meeting is at 11 a.m., Tuesday, in this room, where we will begin consideration of the ethics package, and in particular, we hear witnesses who are ethics commissioners from the provinces.

The meeting is adjourned until then.