[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. The committee is meeting today to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in respect of his estimates.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley is well known of all the members and we welcome him. Mr. Kingsley, you have the floor.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I would like to bid good morning to all members of the committee.
I should say that my introductory remarks will take approximately 25 minutes. The first half will be in Shakespeare's language and the second half will be in that of Molière.
.1110
Before I begin, I would like to introduce the Elections Canada officials who have joined me today in order to help me explain our estimates to you: Mrs. Janice Vézina, who is director of elections financing at Elections Canada; Mrs. Judy Charles, the director of strategic planning, who is also responsible for the register project or what may be called the permanent list of electors; Mr. Jean-Claude Léger, the director of operations, who is the principal go-between with returning officers and handles operations during elections in a big way; Mrs. Marilyn Amendola, director of communications, who has recently joined Elections Canada; and of course, Mr. Jacques Girard, who most of your have already met, who is director of legal services and policy planning at Elections Canada.
They are also in attendance if there are questions raised that require them to come forward and answer, but they're not at this time official witnesses like the four who are before you now.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the main estimates that my office has tabled for the 1995-96 fiscal year and to answer any questions you may have related to them, of course, with the assistance of my colleagues.
Last year I apprised the committee of the high level of activity experienced in recent years by Elections Canada. Back-to-back electoral events, extensive legislative reform, introduction of new technological tools and an extended mandate are major challenges we have faced.
Today we continue to maintain a constant state of readiness to conduct electoral events, be it a general election, a by-election or a federal referendum. In fact, we are currently completing our post-event activities for the three recent federal by-elections. While these ongoing activities continue to consume much of our time and resources, we are committed to seeking out new opportunities to better serve the Canadian electorate and to remain at the forefront of electoral administration.
With the adoption of our first corporate strategic plan and the implementation of an effective technological infrastructure, we can now focus on longer-term initiatives that will, among others, allow us to devise strategies to meet future developments, enable us to identify opportunities to make the electoral process more efficient and responsive to the Canadian people, and further develop our capability to provide effective support to parliamentarians and to act as a source of electoral expertise both nationally and internationally. We believe it is now opportune to capitalize on our vision for the future and to chart our course for the 21st century.
Before looking to the future, I first wish to advise the committee that the financial accounts of the 35th general election are, for the most part, closed. I am now able to report that the actual cost incurred for the 35th general election in fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95, including reimbursements to candidates and political parties, was $166 million.
There were a number of new factors that had an impact on the conduct of the 35th general election and that consequently increased its cost. They included the cost of implementing Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, computerizing many of our operations, including the lists, and maintaining a state of election readiness for the fifth year of the 34th Parliament's mandate. This was the year between the referendum and the general election, which was a fifth year in the mandate. There were also costs associated with a significant increase in the elector population and an unprecedented 2,155 candidates, 37% more than in 1988.
At the same time, there were several initiatives such as the reuse of the list of electors, which, as I indicated to the committee last year, resulted in an estimated cost avoidance of approximately $16 million. This would have resulted in an even greater cost avoidance had a computerized list of electors existed for the province of Quebec.
At my March 16 appearance before the committee I was given the opportunity to discuss in some detail the conduct of the recent federal by-elections in the electoral districts of Brome - Missisquoi, Saint-Henri - Westmount, and Ottawa - Vanier.
.1115
I explained that preparations for by-elections are much the same as for general elections and that a number of new systems and procedures introduced for the 35th general election needed to be adapted for the purposes of these by-elections, the first to take place since the adoption of Bill C-114 amending the Canada Elections Act.
Based on our experience at the 35th general election, the forecast expenditures for fiscal year 1994-95 respecting the conduct of the by-elections remain at approximately $1.75 million, the figure I related to the committee last time. There's no forecast increase in that estimate.
I now wish to turn my attention to the main estimates that my office has tabled for fiscal year 1995-96.
As the committee knows, our work is currently carried out under two separate authorities. The administrative vote, controlled by Treasury Board, provides for the salaries of a core group of full-time employees - approximately 54 in number - the cost of their training, and certain other expenses related to the ongoing operation of the office.
The statutory authority expenditures represent nearly 90% of our overall 1995-96 resource requirements. These expenditures include the cost of services, supplies and additional staff required in the preparation for and the conduct of elections and referendums. They also include costs related to our responsibilities under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Northwest Territories Elections Act and to special projects such as the research and development of a register of electors.
For 1994-95 our administrative requirements of $3.2 million under the administrative vote and our statutory forecast of $39.1 million under the statutory authority total $42.3 million. The additional projected statutory expenditures of some $1.75 million are related solely to the conduct of the three by-elections, as I mentioned before. They are included in our supplementary estimates D, which I explained in March when I appeared before the committee, and will be incorporated in the final projected total expenditures for 1994-95.
For 1995-96 our administrative requirements under the administrative vote remain at $3.2 million, while our statutory forecast is $19.5 million, for a total of $22.7 million, as compared to the $42.3 million last year.
We have had discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding the administrative duplication resulting from operating under two budgetary authorities - the administrative vote and the statutory authority. The Treasury Board Secretariat has recognized in correspondence with my office that when not actually conducting an election or a referendum we are in fact in a constant state of preparation for an event. This is especially so given the requirement for an infrastructure to support computer technology. Therefore it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate our activities carried out under the administrative vote from those under the statutory authority.
It is our objective that when the opportunity presents itself, amendments to the Canada Elections Act will be proposed to Parliament seeking to allow for all of Elections Canada's expenditures to be made under the statutory authority. Given the increased responsibility of this committee to consider and to report on the expenditure plans and priorities of my office, we believe this would be a more reasonable approach. We further believe it would result in a more effective accountability framework and more streamlined internal processes and procedures.
It's not in my notes, but as an ad lib comment I would also say that as Chief Electoral Officer I now feel we have progressed significantly in our ability to forecast, to make these meaningful figures for you to review and comment on when we present ourselves before you.
In recent years stategic planning has become an integral part of our way of thinking and working, helping us to adapt to and in fact to thrive on change.
.1120
It was the Auditor General who, following his 1989 comprehensive audit of Elections Canada, identified a need for greater emphasis on analysis and planning. In response to the Auditor General's recommendations, Elections Canada immediately began to develop and implement new management strategies. A planning framework was established to ensure readiness for the federal referendum. This planning framework was later enhanced for the general election. Then in November 1994 we published our first strategic plan, setting out our corporate vision for the future. Extra copies are available. They've already been sent previously, but they're available here.
The strategic plan involves all levels of the organization and addresses every facet of our activities. It defines our mission, our values and principles, the key results areas that provide focus to our activities, and the strategies for attaining our goals. The strategic plan also provides a framework for the business plan of Elections Canada and implementation of the new expenditure management system, to which I've just alluded.
While I do not intend to describe every project included in our 1995-96 main estimates, there are certain initiatives that in my view warrant your attention. These initiatives reflect ongoing efforts of Elections Canada to provide efficient and effective electoral services that address the needs and concerns of electors and parliamentarians. They further reflect our continued commitment to explore opportunities for rationalizing and streamlining our activities, avoiding duplication of effort among the different levels of government and developing partnerships with the provinces and territories, the private sector, and federal and provincial government departments and agencies having shared interests or shared data.
[Translation]
I shall now speak in my mother tongue.
On the basis of our experience with the 35th general election and our post-electoral evaluations, and given the broad support we received from this Committee, my office is doing an in-depth review of the Canada Elections Act. Following this process, an appendix will be added to my report on the 35th general election. This appendix will be tabled before the House of Commons in June of this year and will chart a number of measures which, to my mind, would contribute to a better management of the Act and the electoral process and also, in other regards, pave the way for the future of this fundamental piece of legislation.
This appendix will revolve around five key elements. Participation: making the electoral process even more accessible to voters, to the parties, to the candidates and other groups; registration and voting: set adequate mechanisms for the registration of voters and in order to ensure the security and integrity of the vote; financing: implement financial audit procedures in order to reinforce the public's confidence in the whole process; sensitizing the voters: reinforce our open and equitable communication system with the voters; and finally, electoral management: manage our electoral process efficiently and reinforce the role of the office of the CEO with a view to reinforcing electoral democracy.
In order to attain these objectives, we need sufficient flexibility within the legislation in order to make better use of the new technologies and of the possibility to exchange computer data with other electoral administrations.
Apart from this internal review of the Canada Elections Act, my office has also provided support to the committee while the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was being reviewed. We will be happy to offer our support to the committee at any time, as this is a task that we sincerely welcome.
My office will also remain at the disposal of parliamentarians as they are reviewing the Referendum Act starting in June 1995, three years after it has come into force, according to paragraph 40(1) of the Act.
We are presently modifying the Referendum regulations to take into account the changes made to the Canada Elections Act, in 1993. The new regulations will be submitted to the committee for review around mid-May, as well as to the Senate Committee, as prescribed by the Referendum Act.
.1125
Internationally, Canada continues to be at the forefront of the electoral process. Elections Canada is involved in multilateral programs sponsored by international organizations and answers the requests directed by foreign governments to Foreign Affairs, International Trade or the Canadian International Development Agency.
Most of these foreign endeavours are financed by the Canadian International Development Agency. To date, Elections Canada, with the support of provincial administrations, has been a Canadian presence in over 200 international missions for the support of democracy in 69 countries of the world.
Considering the ever changing international political climate, we expect to see an on-going demand for our services. We have announced recently that there was a need to rationalize our international electoral role, as well as our dealings with our Canadian partners.
Following a suggestion that we made, a working group has been set up. Its members are representatives of Elections Canada, of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and of the Canadian International Development Agency. In order to improve our efficiency and better coordinate our activities, the working group has adopted a protocol as a framework for the new «multicountry electoral assistance program». This program will be financed by the Canadian International Development Agency and delivered by Elections Canada. An amount of slightly less than a million dollars will be earmarked to this end.
Within the framework of our increasing international activities, I have attended, with two representatives of my office, to the first trilateral annual conference which took place in Mexico in April of last year. This conference was a forum for the electoral administrators of Canada, Mexico and the United States to exchange information and other useful experience.
La Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México has also invited me to Mexico City during the presidential and congressional election in August 1994. Elections Canada will have the privilege of hosting the second trilateral annual conference which will take place on the 10th, 11th and 12th of May. The members of the committee have been invited to the opening and closing ceremonies of this meeting. It is a great pleasure for me to reiterate this most sincere invitation and to tell you that your presence can only add to the importance of this event.
During the coming year, we will seek new ways to sensitize the public to our electoral process and to the role of Elections Canada. Apart from programs aimed at the general public, we will continue to take innovative steps in order to reach members of the handicapped communities, native voters and members of the ethnocultural communities, new citizens, young people as well as Canadians living overseas.
A global voter education program recently established by my office will help us target our efforts and ensure that our communications are still up to the public's expectations. The strategy embodies a revised simulated election program for school and community groups, the production of teaching materials aimed at teachers at various levels and in various disciplines, and the creation of a special kit called «Turnkey Election» which would help student organizations set up elections.
This year, the 1st of July marks the 75th anniversary of our Federal Election Act which created the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. We are in the process of establishing a program to underline this anniversary, albeit in a modest way. Among other things, a book and a video on the history of voting in Canada will be produced and, this summer, there will be an exhibition in the foyer of the House of Commons. These activities will reinforce our information and education initiatives and will throw a new light on our organization and the role it plays in the electoral process.
As you know, Elections Canada has been paving the way for the creation of a register of electors which could be shared by federal, provincial territorial and even municipal and school district electoral organizations. The electoral lists that were used during the general election in 1993, starting with the referendum in 1992 have shown that the updating of a pre-existing computer list is a useful and efficient solution.
.1130
As I mentioned earlier, a significant economy is going to be achieved by re-using voters' lists. Our research also underlines potential benefits that might be gained through the exchange of data with provincial, territorial and municipal governments.
Earlier this year, Elections Canada established a project team to complete the research and development for this major initiative. As it was agreed the last time I appeared before the committee, we would like to take this opportunity to inform you about our plans in this respect and to receive your comments on the work we've accomplished so far.
Ms Judy Charles, who is the director of strategic planning at Elections Canada and the person in charge of the register project, is here, as you know, and with the committee's permission and whenever it is convenient for you, Mr. Chairman, Ms Charles will give you a brief overview of the register team's mandate, of our planning hypotheses for the research and development stage, and of the progress achieved so far with a number of pilot projects that we have undertaken with potential partners.
Ms Charles will respond with a short presentation, at the request of the committee, whenever you feel it is appropriate. I've now finished my opening statement. If you have any questions on any item, we will be happy to answer them. Thank you once again.
The Chairman: Does the committee agree to continue with Ms Charles' presentation?
Mr. Kingsley: Do you want to proceed with the presentation?
[English]
Mrs. Judy Charles (Director of Strategic Planning, Elections Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's both a privilege and an honour for me to be here this morning to talk to you about the register of electors project. I know the subject has been raised on numerous previous occasions when Mr. Kingsley has appeared before the committee, and I sincerely welcome an opportunity to give you an overview of the project, which we formally established in January of this year.
I'll focus my presentation on the slides that have been given to you. Hopefully you'll be able to follow along with me.
The purpose of my presentation this morning is first to give you information on the register itself, including the background that led us to where we are today. Next, I'd like to review the direction we intend to take over the coming months in continuing to develop the register project. And lastly, very importantly, I'd like to discuss any issues or concerns and answer any questions you may have at this point about our project on the register of electors.
My presentation is divided into three main parts this morning. In the first I'd like to explain to you what the concept of a register is, as far as we're concerned, and talk to you a little bit about some of the key principles that are governing our work in this research phase of the project. Next, I'd like to review some of the initiatives that Elections Canada has undertaken since the 1988 general election, which have essentially positioned us to feel comfortable that we're ready to continue to investigate and further develop the implementation of a register of electors. Lastly, I'd like to review some of the project activities the project team at Elections Canada will be undertaking between now and this fall.
What is a register of electors? In terms of how we define a register, let me offer the following. We always need to know who is eligible to vote. Notwithstanding the method of voting, notwithstanding some of the changes that we take advantage of with respect to technology, we always need to know what our client or customer base is, and in this regard we're similar to many other large institutions. So we consider the register to be an automated application, updating the files of Canadians who are 18 and over and are eligible to vote, and including their names and their addresses.
We see it as a system that would allow us to take advantage of existing reliable information currently available in other sources and in that way hopefully eliminate some of the duplication that exists, certainly at the level of the public sector, which, as I'm sure we all appreciate, results in an imposition on Canadians, and a costly one as well.
Lastly, the register would be used to produce the preliminary list after the writs for a general election have been issued. It would be revised during the election period, somewhat similar to our experience in the 1993 general election when we reused the list that had been produced for the 1992 referendum.
.1135
Why look at a register now? There are a number of compelling reasons that have led us to this point. The first is that door-to-door enumeration is the single largest cost component of an electoral event at the present time.
Next, difficulties with enumeration are increasing. Demographic changes, security issues, particularly in the urban areas, make enumeration more difficult. We find there are fewer available enumerators. Notwithstanding the fact that we have lowered the potential age to 16, the resource base is certainly shrinking. Even political parties have experienced difficulties in providing us with sufficient numbers of names as potential nominees for the position of enumerators.
Given the changes in our procedures and the advent of technology, the level of competence that's required for enumerators has significantly increased over the years. Residents, we find, are becoming more and more reluctant to answer their door, and in fact we are concerned about the security of enumerators in some of the more densely populated urban areas.
Lastly, but certainly very importantly from our perspective, it's becoming an increasing challenge to hire, train and monitor up to 110,000 enumerators in the first 19 days after the issue of the writ.
We see the register of electors as an opportunity to eliminate duplication among jurisdictions. At the moment enumeration is conducted for federal, provincial, municipal and some school board elections. By maintaining and sharing an automated list, we feel we would be reducing effort, avoiding costs and certainly improving the quality of the lists that are maintained.
We view the development of a register of electors as a possibility for shortening the electoral calendar, which, as you know, is currently 47 days. On this last point in particular we would welcome the committee's perspective on a suitable period for an electoral event, given the kinds of political considerations you would have to take into account.
There are a number of key principles that are guiding us in the development of this register. Mr. Kingsley mentioned in his opening remarks that there is an increasing demand on the services of Elections Canada on the international scene, and I feel you would all agree with me that this is due largely to the integrity currently inherent in the Canadian process. The fairness, the transparency and the openness of our process spelled out in legislation must be maintained at all cost.
As is the case with enumeration currently, we consider it vital that any system we develop reach out to eligible voters. The ease of registration continues to be an important consideration in the development of this project.
The reliability we currently experience with voter registration, using current enumeration and revision processes, is critical. Any system we develop would have to meet those same tests of reliability. Privacy and confidentiality of elector information must be maintained, and we're working with representatives of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to help us meet that particular challenge.
The sharing of information, of expertise and of knowledge are key aspects of the strategic plan Mr. Kingsley alluded to that we developed this year. This principle certainly enjoys the support of the provincial colleagues we've talked to. So as a minimum, any development will ensure that there's an assessment of the register's potential use by other jurisdictions.
We wish to make use of existing electronically available data sources at the federal and provincial levels. Naturally these must be of acceptable reliability, but it's considered vital to us that we take advantage of existing sources of information so as to eliminate duplication. There must be a solid economically viable rationale for developing a register of electors.
I'd like now to turn to our evolution or the evolution of the steps that Elections Canada took that led us to the development of the register at this point. We've made considerable progress in the use of automation to improve the electoral process and we've told you about that on numerous appearances. We now consider ourselves well positioned to continue developing the concept of a register. To set the scene, I'd like to take just a couple of minutes to outline some of the more significant milestones leading to today.
In the 1988 general election most returning officers were still making use of typewriters to produce the electoral list. Some 60 returning officers at the time began to use computers for at least part of the list production. While we accepted this initiative on their part, we did have some significant concerns about maintaining quality standards. We certainly couldn't afford experimentation by 295 returning officers at the risk of possibly jeopardizing the conduct of the event.
We made great strides between 1988 and 1992 for the federal referendum.
In 1992 we worked in partnership with private sector service providers and placed microcomputers and local area networks in all returning offices and implemented ECAPLE, or the Elections Canada automated production of the list of electors, which has been referred to on numerous occasions before this committee. ECAPLE was used to produce the first automated voters list for the referendum. Procedures were tightly controlled and standard quality measures were put in place.
.1140
In 1993 we were able to avoid using door-to-door enumeration and we reused the referendum list as the legislation allowed us to, given that the events were within one year of each other. However, as Quebec held its own referendum in 1992, we were obliged to conduct door-to-door enumeration there. As Mr. Kingsley mentioned, the reuse of the list in the rest of Canada resulted in a cost avoidance of some $16 million.
The three by-elections that were held in February 1995 provided us with a further opportunity to test and enhance our procedures. We conducted door-to-door enumeration in the traditional fashion, but we used information from 1993 lists as a basis. We were not able to use it, given that more than a year had elapsed, as a preliminary list, but we did use it as an automated basis for updating the list.
In fact, if enumerators visited a household and information had not changed they simply verified that the information was still current. If the information had been changed it was noted on the form and the necessary changes were input. So there's a significant reduction in the amount of labour involved in data entry.
The final results regarding the effectiveness of using a list that was over a year old are not in, but early indications show us there is promise in this particular process. Over the course of the next year we will be continuing our work on solid geo-referencing base maps with electoral districts and polling division boundaries superimposed on them. We're already moving forward on this as part of the redistribution exercise and many of you are aware of our work in this regard.
We recognize that we need proper lists of addresses, which are currently being developed and enhanced. This last step would allow us to eliminate door-to-door enumeration and move to the implementation of a register.
That now brings me to the register of electors project itself. As we mentioned, we constituted a small project team in January 1995, and although we have significant research ahead of us, we have nonetheless undertaken a fair amount of work to confirm our assumptions and ensure that we're on the right track. We've done some background work with respect to the developments that are already in place in Canada and internationally, and we'll continue to build on all previous efforts.
We will investigate several areas and answer questions such as whether or not there are any partners willing to embark on this venture with us, how the process itself would actually work, what the business case would entail, and what would be required to allow us to move forward. I should emphasize here that we expect there would be legislative implications should we move to the implementation of a register, but these could only be examined after we complete the research stage.
I'd like now to review some of the main activities the team is undertaking to address these questions. A key question is the availability of reliable data sources to update the register. The slide you have before you, slide number 9, highlights both the variables on the left-hand side that we need to contend with in terms of looking at what a register would capture, and on the right-hand side the potential sources of data we're exploring.
Now I must caution you, there's no direct correlation between the left- and the right-hand side, so don't attempt to find one. The right-hand side, outlining the potential data source.... For instance, with respect to address changes, we have done some work with Canada Post and continue to work with them. We've taken a look at their national change of address data system and the data and the results of our early work with them are very promising.
In order to capture information about new Canadians we've entered into an agreement with Citizenship and Immigration and have been able to negotiate the release of that information. We're looking at ways to electronically link it to our database.
At the provincial level we're also examining potential sources of data. Recent tests with the Province of British Columbia's vital statistics department have given us mixed but very positive results nonetheless. We're finding that the matching process involved in ensuring that we have the right elector on a list from one database or one source of information to ours is a lot more complex than we had hoped, but it's nonetheless promising.
.1145
We're also working with several provinces to determine whether or not it would be possible to get access to drivers licences and other sources of information they hold. We're also examining opportunities with the private sector, recognizing there could be potential in working with them as well. We recently ran a small test with information from a company that maintains names, addresses and telephone numbers and found that offered some value.
We are also developing partnerships at a number of levels. We're looking for opportunities, as are most public agencies, to work with other public sector organizations to deliver more economical and effective service to the public.
At the federal level there may be an opportunity to continue working with Statistics Canada, using our expertise and systems and data in order to facilitate their census process.
Next year in the national capital region, for instance, Statistics Canada is conducting a pilot based on the address data we were able to provide them in order for them to access census information. If this particular pilot proves successful, it opens up another area of cooperation to work together to maintain quality addresses and elector information, which could be used as a basis for both census and electoral events. Today we use their expertise and information to develop our electoral maps. So we already have a solid partnership in place with Statistics Canada.
At the provincial level, as you know, changes have already been made to the Canada Elections Act to allow the sharing of our lists for electoral purposes. Certainly in our discussions with our provincial colleagues we are encouraging them to promote the same kinds of changes at the provincial level so that this sort of sharing can be reciprocated.
We recently sent a copy of our address register to the provincial chief electoral officer in Quebec, and he has thus far reported it has been useful in the development work he's doing. In fact, any electoral event provides us with an opportunity to improve quality of information we're maintaining.
We're also looking for opportunities to share expertise in systems and procedures. Last fall Mr. Kingsley wrote to all of our provincial colleagues offering expertise, data, hardware, software, and the response was very positive. This was in follow-up to a conference we had with them in February 1994, where they had all expressed an interest in pursuing this work further.
At the current time New Brunswick is conducting a pilot to automate their lists for the municipal and school board elections in Fredericton and Bathurst. We have worked with them in order to allow them to adapt ECAPLE, our system, to accommodate the special fields they would require for their events. The initial results are very positive, and New Brunswick is considering automating their list for the next provincial election, thereby incurring significant savings.
Thus far, Manitoba has agreed to share lists from their provincial election, and we are also considering requests at the moment from Nova Scota and the Northwest Territories with respect to adapting ECAPLE as well.
We found that by working with our colleagues and developing pilots we get a much better perspective on the unique requirements of provincial and municipal levels, which helps us to establish the future directions of the register project itself.
There are several options and suboptions that we need to consider and assess in building, maintaining and using the register. We will be looking at some of these between now and the fall, and in considering the options for building we need to consider items such as how best to establish an initial base, a springboard from which we would continue our work. Is there indeed a need for another enumeration or are we able to reuse existing information? If there is a need for another enumeration, should we consider asking for authority to do it outside of the electoral event in order to give us more time for quality assurance and control? We need to determine whether or not we would want to ask for additional information.
In terms of the options for maintaining the register - and by maintaining I refer to keeping it up to date between electoral events, because, as you know, Elections Canada must be ready at all times to quickly produce a preliminary voters list - we need to assess the feasibility of looking at centralized versus decentralized models for maintenance, and we need to examine the various management options that would be available. We need also to look at the use such a register would have for others, and we need to examine any constraints on its use. Before proceeding with this development, we must be assured that there is a solid business case.
We will be comparing the cost of a continuous register scenario to the cost of door-to-door enumeration. That's obviously an important consideration in any further work we do. There will naturally be costs incurred to build, maintain and use the register and these costs will have to be considered as we forecast a pay-back period.
.1150
At Elections Canada we're certainly convinced that a continuous register is worthy of further examination, but in looking at the business case we will assess the merits of developing a register for use at the federal level only versus those inherent in one used multi-jurisdictionally.
In this presentation I've attempted to provide you with some perspective on what led us to this stage, some of the key principles that are governing our work, and some of the activities we are pursuing between now and this fall. By then we expect to have a better perspective on many of the questions that I'm sure many of you will have today. We'll know the most likely sources of quality information we can use to update and maintain the register, and we'll be much more familiar with how accessible and how costly these are.
I've briefly outlined some of the options for building, maintaining and using a continuous register. There are many others we have to consider. Hopefully by the fall we'll have narrowed down these options and selected the preferred ones for your consideration. Once selected, these options will allow determination of cost and timeframe for implementation. In turn, knowing these should assist us in determining the actual pay-back period. Finally, we'll know definitively which partners are willing to work with us. The results of this work we will be looking forward to sharing with you this fall.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we welcome any questions you may have on the register.
The Chairman: Thank you for that very complete description of the work being undertaken.
Mr. Lee, you're first on my list this morning.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Thank you. I have to leave very shortly. My apologies. I will leave questions on the register, which is perhaps the most cost-significant item we could deal with here today, to colleagues. I had another item that I wanted to slide in here and it had to do with communications.
Over the last 10 to 20 years in the region - I'm in the Metro-Toronto region - from time to time the issue of election fraud comes up, and we're talking on a minute scale. We're talking about individuals here and there who try to pull a fast one at election time.
Just as Revenue Canada from time to time will pick a case and publicize it - I have the sense that every six months or so they pick a case and send out press releases when there's a conviction so that the public knows that the tax man is out there - I'm wondering if Elections Canada saw that as a useful road to follow every six months or so to assist in publicizing what is a public case, a conviction and a penalty so that the public knows that there is a line they should not cross.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would attempt to answer this as completely as possible. We attempt in all of our public reports to report to the public and to parliamentarians the cases of complaints that have been brought to Elections Canada. As well, there is significant media coverage whenever there is a case involving fraud.
There are cases that have gone forward involving fraud and there are convictions that have occurred, as a matter of fact during the last election. In my view, this sends out the message. It would be difficult for us to come out with a case every six months because we don't have elections every six months, but I think these mechanisms at this stage appear to be doing the job because, as you say, the number of cases is quite small.
I do remember that there was a specific complaint - I think it was by a member of Parliament - about a group of persons he thought were not Canadians. An investigation was carried out that clearly demonstrated that all of those persons were Canadians, except for one who had not voted.
What I'm trying to say is we can do more things, but if the problem is not major, do we want to do more? In our view, the problem is one that is controlled. The mechanisms that exist through the media, the Charlottetown case, for example, to which I'm referring, about a particular case involving a special ballot and its misuse by a party worker - all of this is known to the public and is reported in all my reports.
.1155
I don't know if members feel that I should be doing more in terms of issuing a press release whenever there is a conviction. I know the media already do that quite well, and I'm not being facetious in saying this; I'm just thinking out loud. Is there more you would like us to do if you think this is that significant an issue?
Mr. Lee: I am not for a minute suggesting that you do a press release or a press conference whenever there's a conviction. It is possible that from your office in Ottawa you may think that everybody knows, that the rest of the country knows exactly what's going on, because you see some reference to it in one particular press clip. It may be that the rest of the country doesn't have the benefit of your press clipping service and doesn't watch the issue quite as closely as you would.
I'm suggesting that as part of your overall, long-run communication plan it might be useful to keep that concept in mind. Maybe it's once a year; maybe it's once every four years. At some point, if it is perceived that this area of fraud is a problem - and I gather that everyone is of the view that it certainly is not a major problem, it's of minute significance - every once in a while consider that as part of a communication plan. Pick one case that you think draws the line clearly enough and try to give it the appropriate spin.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I think that is certainly advice I will take to heart.
One of the things about which Canadians can be proud is the fact that fraud is minimal. If we can enhance this fact with the Canadian public by letting them know that there are certain cases that do occur, even in Canada, that people do report them and that the Commissioner of Elections Canada does investigate and does prosecute and the courts do find guilty and impose fines.... I get the message that you're delivering and that is something we will take under advisement for our communications program. Thank you very much.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I'd like to thank Mr. Kingsley and Ms Charles for the detailed report on the possibility of a compulsory register.
I just wonder in terms of two of the issues that have been raised, the issue of expense and possibly also the sociological changes in the electorate, the increased mobility of modern society, whether you've had any contacts with countries where the system of compulsory register has been in operation for some time. I think, for example, of Australia, where it's been there for 75 years, at least - a permanent compulsory register. Are there any issues of increased costs involved in the computer age? I would assume perhaps they should be less. Second, does the more mobile society we're now dealing with provide extra problems for the permanent register or less? Do you have any answers on that?
Mrs. Charles: Mr. McWhinney, if I may start with answering your second question first, the issue of elector mobility is definitely a challenge for us. The fact that Canadians move at the rate of some 20% annually makes it -
Mr. McWhinney: Much more than say 10 or 20 years ago.
Mrs. Charles: Exactly. It makes it very difficult to ensure that any register or any inventory of those individuals is kept up to date at any time. So that's one of our significant challenges. It's there that we feel that the initiatives we've been able to embark upon with our provincial colleagues will be of some use to us. Our overall thinking is as each electoral event unfolds across this country, there are opportunities for updating the register of electors at the federal level as well.
Mr. McWhinney: Would the mobility pose more problems for a permanent register or less, in your view, or is it a neutral issue?
Mrs. Charles: I believe as long as the revision procedures and processes that are currently in place remain as significant as they are, our experience to date shows us that we expect to be able to achieve the same degree of reliability or coverage as we currently experience with classical enumeration and revision combined.
.1200
Mr. McWhinney: Thank you. And the second question, then, with regard to expense.
Mrs. Charles: With respect to the knowledge we have of what is happening on the international scene, we have conducted some research. We have talked to our counterparts in Australia. We have had occasion to actually have some of their members visit us. So we have entertained discussions with them and are aware of some of the difficulties and challenges they have in place.
As you mentioned, Mr. McWhinney, in Australia registration is compulsory. We're certainly not advocating that. That's certainly not one of the key principles under which we're proposing the development of our register.
Mr. McWhinney: Although it might be an interesting point to add with the proper political mandate.
Mrs. Charles: True enough.
We have had the opportunity to take a look at what is happening in the United Kingdom and in some other countries, but to date, given that our project team has really only been established since January in any official way, we're continuing to build on this preliminary research. But certainly it is part of our project plan to ensure that we've adequately covered the experience of other jurisdictions, both across Canada and elsewhere in the world.
Mr. McWhinney: I guess it has to be a guess, the projection of the relative expense. Would it be more or less expensive than the classical system?
Mrs. Charles: That's a very difficult question for me to answer or for any of us to answer at this particular juncture. We feel that until such time as we have really concluded the feasibility stage and developed a solid business case, we're not really in a position to give any definitive or even any ballpark estimate.
I should add, though, that one of the key premises under which we're operating is that for any register, while it would have to meet the same tests for reliability, we expect that it should certainly not cost us more than the current method of enumeration, or it begs the question of why develop a register at this particular point.
Mr. McWhinney: Thank you so much for a very helpful report.
Mrs. Charles: Thank you.
The Chairman: You had something to add there, Mr. Kingsley?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.
Should it only be at the federal level, our objective is to not cost more. Obviously through the partnerships with provinces and other jurisdictions, if the lists start to be used between jurisdictions then you get to very significant cost savings. The royal commission had estimated that would amount to approximately $150 million every 10 years.
I suspect the amount is probably more because they were dealing with technology at a state of evolution. By the time we're through with this we will have even newer technology that we don't even know of now and which will greatly facilitate, at least in my view, things beyond what was possible then.
I will add as well that in terms of other countries, I brought along a sample. I don't know if we've got others.
Mrs. Charles: I have a few copies.
Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps we could just circulate them for information.
This is what Mexico has done in terms of a permanent register of electors. What you have here is a sample muestra of the lists for the by-elections that are going to be run in the near future based on their permanent register. Perhaps you could circulate them now so people could take a look. This is, quite frankly, a marvel.
This is what it looks like, where you actually have the picture of the person as well as all the other variable information, and they are recognizable. This is a photocopy of a document that was given to me by the Mexicans two weeks ago when I was there to speak at the university about the Canadian electoral process.
So we are taking into account what others are doing. I will not tell you that we will be at the stage where we will have pictures of Canadians on lists, as that's not part of our study, but we are keeping in mind what other jurisdictions are doing.
Mr. McWhinney: Have you had any reactions at the provincial level to the possibility of cooperation, without identifying provinces by name? Is there some significant sympathy for the idea, do you find?
Mrs. Charles: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will answer that question.
Yes, Mr. McWhinney, we have had at both the conceptual and practical levels a tremendous amount of support from our provincial colleagues. Although this has probably been an item that's been discussed over the course of several years, certainly from the time in which the royal commission began its studies, it was really in February 1994 that Elections Canada decided to gather together the provincial chief electoral officers in Ottawa to discuss the issue of automation of electoral administration and more particularly to test the notion or the idea of jointly working on a project that would see the development of a register that could be used by various jurisdictions.
.1205
At that time we received the nod from all of our provincial colleagues, without exception. Obviously many of them were not in a position to provide us with much more than a positive indication of interest. Their resources were constrained and many of them were facing upcoming electoral events. But we proceeded by following up at our next conference of chief electoral officers last August and have since then entered into bilateral discussions with a number of provinces - most notably New Brunswick, where we are actively pursuing adapting our federal system to accommodate the needs of both the provinces and the municipalities. But New Brunswick is really only one example of several; there are many others. I would have to say that there's positive response all round.
The Chairman: Perhaps I could interject. The question I have is how you get people off the list, which I think is the main concern. You've indicated in your presentation lots of ways people get on, through turning 18 years of age, the birth registration or driver's licence - whatever you get from each province - but my concern is getting people off the list.
Under our current system you start with a clean slate, so only electors get on. People who were electors and have moved and who haven't indicated their move are left on the list. That's been my experience with the 1993 election. My electors list was much larger than it should have been because of enormous duplication, because so many of my electors moved - they're students and they change apartments. There were very few deletions and a tremendous number of additions. How do you solve that problem?
Mrs. Charles: I wish I had an answer for you. It's certainly a question we wrestle with on a regular basis as we look at the development of the register. It's one of the key things we're studying right now. It goes hand in hand with the whole notion of electoral mobility. People such as students, the elderly who live in nursing homes, and electors who traditionally move on a very frequent basis pose a significant challenge for us.
In the 1993 event we counted on the revision process to catch those kinds of changes and ensure that people were removed from the list if possible. But it's certainly one of the areas that are most difficult to control. We're hoping, obviously, that the development of a register would allow us to make better use of existing information, either through driver licences at the provincial level or through other databases that would be available and accessible and not too costly, to enhance our own ability to use the revision process to make those kinds of changes.
I alluded in my presentation to the work we have been doing with the Province of British Columbia on vital statistics, because removing the names of deceased electors is another challenge. Certainly those are all areas where we're pursuing with some degree of vigour the methods that would best serve us in terms of meeting the challenge you're outlining.
The Chairman: I think it's just as important to do that as to get people on, frankly.
Mrs. Charles: We recognize that.
The Chairman: Otherwise you get what's known in the trade as the ``dead vote'' in big numbers.
Mrs. Charles: Right.
Mr. Kingsley: In which case you're back to the fraud issue.
The Chairman: Exactly.
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): What was the total cost for advertising and registering in the 1993 election?
Mr. Kingsley: What was the total cost for advertising and...?
The Chairman: Registering the voters?
Mr. Malhi: Non-voters.
Mr. Kingsley: The electors.
Mr. Malhi: Yes.
Mr. Kingsley: I will ask Mrs. Vézina to answer the two questions. Since they are in two separate parts of the briefing book it will take her a second to recuperate the data for you.
Mr. Malhi: Second, could somebody register through Revenue Canada? Most people send their income tax return every year. Can they register as voters through Revenue Canada too? There could be one column on the form where you say you are a registered voter or not. At least when you file your return they'll know who is a voter and who is not.
Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps while Mrs. Vézina is looking for the answer to the first question I can attempt to answer the second one.
.1210
The use of Revenue Canada data for electoral purposes is something on which I would appreciate guidance from this committee. I remember that when there were discussions and studies carried out on behalf of the commission, this was an idea that was brought forward and studied. There were perceived to be significant problems in the sense that Canadians would have problems with the knowledge that this kind of data bank was being utilized by Elections Canada or that there was a tie-in between Revenue Canada and Elections Canada. Frankly, I'm sensitive to the issue, but I would like to hear from parliamentarians whether they think it is an issue or not.
I will leave aside the fact that non-Canadians pay taxes in Canada, so therefore we would have to have a clear indication they are Canadians before we would register them. If we were to use Revenue Canada data.... Immigrants pay taxes and they're not Canadians, therefore they're not authorized to vote. That's one problem, but it's one that would be overcome. But I'll leave that aside.
I'd just like to have some guidance from the committee. Do you think it is something worth studying?
Certainly I have much less difficulty in looking at Statistics Canada, because the use of their lists or the use of their data is very much controlled by statute. There is a perception, justified, among the Canadian population that this is so - and that is a data bank that is analogous to Elections Canada in the minds of Canadians - in the sense that this is not something that would create a problem if we were able to change the legislation to allow us to exchange data about lists and about names. I don't know if the same would apply to an exchange between Revenue Canada and Elections Canada.
So on both scores I would like the views of the committee, so we can take that into account in terms of the studies we're doing. That is why we're presenting this to you now. It is to get your input, because you are the ones who will be legislating in this area, not us.
Perhaps Mrs. Vézina can answer the questions about the two costs, and we can come back to that element of the discussion, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Malhi: That's easy to differentiate. When somebody fills out the application for employment, there is a column for landed immigrant or Canadian citizen. In the same way, they can put landed immigrant or Canadian citizen in the Revenue Canada return form.
Mr. Kingsley: That takes care of the one question, which I had practically set aside as being a major one, but you've handled it. There's still a political discussion and members may still have political views. How at ease do you feel about that on behalf of the Canadians you represent, in light of the studies that show Canadians have a great reluctance to see anything else being tied into the Revenue Canada data banks?
Mrs. Janice Vézina (Director, Elections Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): I've located the information concerning the registration of voters. This would include the enumeration and revision components of voter registration. That's up to day five, the end of revision. The total revision costs were $32,745,000. Total enumeration and revision was $46,708,000. If you add in the computer hardware share that was allocated between the referendum and the election, that's another $3.3 million, for a grand total of $50 million.
Mr. Kingsley: Now, if you wish to know what it would have been under a regular system of house to house, because the 1993 general election did not involve that except for the province of Quebec, you would have to add the cost avoidance of the $16 million we've talked about to that figure to get an idea of what it would cost under what was called a classical enumeration and revision. That gives you a ballpark of what that would be. We're talking in the $60 million league, if I understand correctly.
Mrs. Vézina: Between $60 million and $70 million.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. There was a second question about advertising.
Mrs. Vézina: In terms of the communication program for the 1993 general election, I don't have the information with me today. We could provide it to you in writing at a later time.
.1215
The Chairman: Or on Thursday.
Mr. Kingsley: I will tell, as a ballpark figure, my recollection is that it's in the vicinity of $9 million or $10 million. That involves all of our advertising with respect to the general public - on television, on radio, in the newspapers, in the weeklies - at the four or five different critical stages where we must tell Canada now is the time to register, now is the time to be revised, this is your last opportunity, this is voting day, and these are advance-poll days. We must tell these things to Canadians.
As well, it includes what we did with the aboriginal media, because we had a special contract in respect of that, and the ethnic media, because we also reached out to them, and minority-language media throughout Canada. So all of that was covered. I think the ballpark figure that I said is correct, but we will come back to you with more precise information.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Mr. Kingsley and staff, I would like to thank you for coming in today. Several questions have popped up in my mind about how many different groups we have collecting data on Canadians. Certainly it seems to be a mind-boggling task just to list the number of groups that would do that federally, provincially and municipally.
In listening to this and thinking about it, I'm wondering why we wouldn't move to a national registry of Canadians and residents in the country, which would be all-encompassing and not connected to any one department, although we could receive information from many sources to keep that registry in place. Then we could place the onus on Canadians to update that registry whenever specific changes occur - a student goes to university and a change of address, a person moves from one community to another and a change of address - much the same way you might change your address if you were applying for a driver's licence or whatever other. This would encompass all Canadians and all residents of the country.
When you're encompassing all Canadians on that list, they would have to prove their Canadian citizenship, and that could be used as a voters list. As well, we could go one step beyond, and I think about identification for other purposes - photo identity that couldn't be duplicated for all federal and provincial government services. It could be expanded into all of the different activities that are carried on within government levels.
Now, I know it may be right out to lunch to even think about doing something of this nature, but in my mind, if we had something like that we could probably cut back the services of ten departments or twenty departments that are doing the same job and doing the same activity over and over again, whether it's Revenue Canada or health, welfare, province-wide. No matter who it is - drivers licences, you name it - it's all being done over and over again.
I think a national registry for both Canadians and residents would resolve some of those difficulties we have. I don't know that anyone would have major objections if it were a national registry that always had to be kept updated, one group dealing with all of the activities of keeping some idea of where all our people are.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can answer the question by saying that theoretically I can easily see, because it's quite evident, that if it were possible to have such a national registry there would be economies. They stand out. The reason I purposely distributed this is because the Mexicans have found, through their very elaborate padrón or electoral list, they have come out with just such a thing. They're going to modify this to become such a thing as you've just described.
.1220
In Canada, I was saying that in theory there would be economies. I think the main problem that would be joined - and it is one that you, as representatives of the people, would have to settle - is that the Chief Electoral Officer would require only certain pieces of information: Canadian citizen, 18 years of age, address, perhaps telephone number, because we're finding through some of our tests that it's very helpful to us to check out certain pieces of information that electors give us. It's an easy way to access Canadians.
So that is data we need. National Revenue would need some other additional information beyond that, then another department would need something else, and for the national register, if there are going to be economies, health records would also be there.
I think the concern that would hit Canadians directly is one of the privacy of the information. The concern is they would have to know there is one repository where effectively everything about them is known in one source. But it's not for me, as Chief Electoral Officer, to settle that issue; it really is more up to you, as the representatives of the people. All I know is that, as was explained by Mrs. Charles, in terms of what we're trying to do, we're trying to minimize the costs of changes by tying into other data banks where there are changes already and avoiding the necessity of creating a separate system again.
Now, the other point you made would be that for such a national registry the onus would be on the Canadian or the resident to let this authority, whoever it would be, know of any change to it, whether for driver's permit, medical record, or whatever at the federal level. It's amazing how many federal departments and agencies are interested in Canadians for a small piece of information, which is the point you're making.
Mr. Pickard: I didn't want the idea to be suggested that I was expanding it to those people in Health and Welfare, those people who are applying for drivers licences, those people who pay to Revenue Canada. What I thought was a national registry would identify all Canadians and all residents. From that point -
Mr. Kingsley: And only that.
Mr. Pickard: - you could structure everything that has to do with an election from one push on a computer button. You could get the Canadians and residents - non-residents who would be eligible would fall in that list of Canadians. You could get names and addresses. That's the information that could be accessible. People who are looking at provincial health and welfare eligibility with one push of a button can see if that person's name is on the list for that province, if that person is a resident of that province, a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Kingsley: I see what you mean.
Mr. Pickard: That's all they need, that amount of information. I'm not talking about feeding a lot of other data into a list. That would, I guess, be considered a problem.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate your making those further comments because it becomes clearer in my mind what you had in mind. Obviously, if such a thing were possible at the federal level then you would see us as willing participants.
Mr. Pickard: I see an election happening every year basically, either a municipal, provincial or federal election that occurs annually. So there would be one authority. And you don't have to be the authority, by the way -
Mr. Kingsley: Right.
Mr. Pickard: - you could just utilize that authority's list. So every municipality, when they set out the municipal electors list, could utilize that list, and the provinces could do the same. When you're trying to decide residency, that list could be utilized. It could be utilized in many, many different ways.
Mr. Kingsley: We've recognized that it's possible we would not be that authority, therefore we could tie into that, because it was indicated in the presentation that the management of this system eventually offers different options and possibilities. It could be that it's not Elections Canada that's running this.
In the meantime, though, we think it's important to continue to progress in this area, because we know that you people around the table essentially have indicated in the past - I know Mr. Lee has, I know Mrs. Parrish has, and I know other members have - that we should move on with the register. We need to have something permanent so that we can start gaining those economies with the other jurisdictions as well as gaining the increase in quality at the federal level.
.1225
I will only take one further minute on this, Mr. Chairman. One of the things we've gained through computerization is an increase in quality, because once you've got the name right, once you've got the address right and the postal code right, you've got it. In the 1988 election, when people had to transcribe the lists four times on a typewriter, it was mind-boggling.
So we know we've achieved this significant progress and what we're now doing is building on all that to go to the next step, which does not pre-empt going in the direction you've said, Mr. Pickard. Our work does not pre-empt that at all, and if it leads us there, so much the better. I really don't need to be running a permanent list to justify my existence.
The Chairman: Members of the committee, we're really at the end of our time for today. I've two more people on the list, but Mr. Kingsley is coming back on Thursday, and if that's agreeable we'll leave it until Thursday and adjourn at this point.
I'm sure there are going to be other questions arising out of what we've heard and I myself might have a few questions. I suspect Mr. Langlois is dreaming them up too.
I remind members, because I thought of it once the presentation got under way, that Mr. Kingsley's report on the by-elections in February was tabled in the House yesterday. It wasn't distributed to members' offices that I'm aware of. I haven't seen it. Members may want to get a copy from the distribution office, assuming they have them, and look at it before Thursday and there may be other questions. Do you have enough copies here for members?
Mr. Kingsley: We're sending them directly to the MPs' offices, but we brought them here as well.
The Chairman: Splendid. During the meeting I had one brought over. I haven't seen it in my office yet, so I guess they're coming. So members may have questions arising out of that as well and this was an opportunity -
Mr. Kingsley: If anyone wants to pick up a copy.... Marilyn, you have them?
The Chairman: They must be in your offices.
This meeting is adjourned.