Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 31, 1996

.0920

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are resuming consideration of the order of reference of Tuesday, October 22, in relation to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act in accordance with Standing Order 73(1).

Colleagues, on your behalf I'd like to welcome, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, who I understand is accompanied this morning by Ms Harris, who is general counsel. Welcome to the committee.

.0925

I understand, Mr. Phillips, that you may have some opening comments.

Then, colleagues, if you wouldn't mind, please give me notice of your interest in being put on the list. If I don't see you, I will presume there is no question.

Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Please begin.

Mr. Bruce Phillips (Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman. I don't have a prepared statement this morning. I just want to make a few brief observations.

I understand that Mr. Kingsley yesterday had some complimentary observations about my office and our participation in this exercise. I would like to respond in kind. A number of privacy issues did come up in the course of the two years he has been working on this, and it is to Mr. Kingsley's credit I think that from the very outset he involved my office and members of my staff in working through these, to bring before you a piece of legislation that to a very large extent satisfied the privacy issues we identified in the bill. It was in my view a very good example of the way in which small agencies such as mine can be of use to Parliament, bearing in mind that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is an office of Parliament, and a basic function - one of them anyway - is to be helpful to you.

When the bill was first brought before us, one of the principal concerns we had turned on the question of the process of updating the register by mining federal databases. It is one of the key principles of the federal Privacy Act that information the government collects from Canadian citizens for a specific purpose is not to be used for other unrelated purposes without their knowledge and consent. That is one of the cardinal principles of every fair information law anywhere in the developed world.

Mr. Kingsley is conscious of this, and over a period of time we worked out a modus vivendi that satisfies us. That is, if for example they are going to seek information from the Revenue Canada database, it would be done only with the consent of the individual taxpayers. We are going to work together to develop a proper consent form that would form part of an individual income tax return. That was our most immediate concern.

There were a number of others. One that has not been addressed, which is not strictly speaking a privacy question, and which Mr. Gray referred to in his testimony, is the decision to provide this list on an annual basis to members of Parliament and to registered parties. That, in our view, is a bit of a stretch - arguing that why it is being done is in any way connected with a person's eligibility to vote, which is the purpose of an electors list. It strikes us that it's more a convenience to members of Parliament and to political candidates in order to be in frequent touch with members. If that is part of the purpose of the bill, it should be frankly stated. It gets a bit beyond my brief.

We are a little bit concerned with some of the language. I haven't had a chance to discuss these things with Mr. Kingsley, so what I'm really talking about here are not so much complaints or objections but things we think need a bit of refinement. I'm concerned principally with the proposal in the bill that's covered on page 14 of the bill in proposed subsections 71.024(1) and (2), dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer's relations with provincial governments.

You've had it all explained to you. I'm sure they are seeking, for purposes of updating the register, to obtain information from provincial databases, such as drivers' licence registrations, and that similarly the Government of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, may enter into agreements with provincial governments for providing information from the federal list to the provinces for the composition of provincial election lists.

Proposed subsection 71.024(2) says:

.0930

It seems to me, and it is a feature of other contractual arrangements between the Government of Canada and provinces, that when information in the custody and control of a federal government agency is made available to third parties, the conditions of the Privacy Act are made applicable to it. It's a standard contract provision.

I think the same principle, at any rate, ought to be applicable to any transfer of electoral list information to provincial governments to ensure that they are bound by the same kinds of conditions that bind the Chief Electoral Officer when he gathers the information in the first place, or, alternatively, a specific contract could be written up to ensure that such things as informed consent and a restriction on subsequent unrelated uses be a part of the agreement.

I'm sure that Mr. Kingsley is giving some thought to this and that maybe he has already discussed it with you, although I haven't heard that he has said this. I think the language there is a little too loose.

In the same proposed section, in subsection 71.024(3), it says:

That implies the sale of personal information in the custody of the Government of Canada, and it certainly offends the existing Privacy Act.

I don't know whether that proposed subsection is in there merely to make it possible for the government to recoup any costs associated with the transfer of information. If so, I think it should be specifically spelled out. The way it reads there, they might require valuable consideration for any purpose whatever, such as marketing. I don't think that's precise enough.

Also on page 14, proposed section 71.021 says:

I think a clarification of the purpose and meaning of that proposed section is required.

On page 27, in proposed subsection 196(2) of the bill, I think there's a carry-over from the old act. I'm surprised we didn't find it before. It says that ``the Chief Electoral Officer'' -

The Chairman: Is that page 27? Is that where you are?

Mr. Phillips: It is on page 27, right up at the top of the page, proposed subsection 196(2) -

The Chairman: That is Inspection of Documents?

.0935

Mr. Phillips: Yes. That proposed subsection reads:

I think those are the only specific problems we have, Mr. Chairman. I just conclude by saying that in general I think Mr. Kingsley has done a very good job of taking into account the personal privacy dimension in this bill. Subject to the very few modest refinements and changes we've suggested, we'd give this one an A-plus.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips. We appreciate your presentation.

Both our clerk and researcher have taken notes for the committee.

As you may know, under the new process of Parliament, this bill has been sent after first reading, so it gives greater latitude to MPs to make changes or improvements and revisions. Frankly, the process has been working rather well.

Colleagues, I'm going to be vigilant this morning because of time constraints. I'll give several rounds of five-minute questions or interventions, if that's agreeable.

We'll begin this morning with Ms Catterall, please.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I mentioned before the meeting started that I wanted to discuss the balancing of different rights here. I appreciate your comments on the privacy rights and how they are or are not reflected in the bill before us, but I also have a concern about all electors being treated on the same basis as far as possible. In fact, I have some concern that some of the privacy considerations have led to provisions in the bill that are going to make it more difficult for some electors to be on the voters list than for others.

We talked yesterday about new citizens. Is there any reason, from your perspective, that we couldn't incorporate their registration on the voters list as part of the citizenship process?

Mr. Phillips: I would make the case, Ms Catterall, that one of the underlying principles of this bill is that it is a Canadian citizen's right to decide whether or not to be included on this list. The principle of voluntarism is deeply embedded not only in this act, but in all of its predecessors. As a consequence, the issue of consent is reflected throughout this bill.

A person who is interviewed at the time of the proposed enumeration can say that he or she does wish to be on the list or does not wish to be on the list. A person who is asked for information for the purposes of updating can refuse or otherwise. A person who finds him or herself on the list can get off it if he or she wishes.

So to treat incoming new citizens differently would require a different judgment of their rights, I suppose, than those who are already in the country. Thus, if there's a case to be made for that, I don't know what it is.

.0940

Whether a person should or should not be required to vote is not, strictly speaking, a privacy issue. It is my opinion as a privacy commissioner that no information of a personal nature should ever be collected from people who are citizens of the country without their informed knowledge and consent. Whether or not, as in some other jurisdictions, people should be required to cast a ballot as a matter of law is an issue that gets beyond my competence. Strictly speaking, in terms of equal treatment, it seems to me you would be saying that we're going to treat immigrants differently from people who are already in the country.

Ms Catterall: No. I'm saying that I presume there would be no problem from a privacy point of view if at the time people were provided with the option to be added to the voters list as part of the application process for citizenship.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, I see. I'm sorry, I didn't understand.

Ms Catterall: That's rather than having it following on after they've become citizens.

Mr. Phillips: That's certainly a useful suggestion. If the proposition is put clearly, unambiguously, and in a way that the applicant understands, and withholding of consent is not in any way relevant to that person's admissibility to the country, I suppose it might be a reasonable approach. I haven't really thought about that, but just off the top of my head it does seem to meet the basic consensual test. It's worth thinking about.

Ms Catterall: I think that might be my five minutes. Do you want to move on and come back to me?

The Chairman: Yes, that would be great.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, please.

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Commissioner, you said proposed clause 71.024 might be too vague. The clause states:

71.024 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may enter into an agreement with any body responsible under provincial law for establishing a list of electors...

In practical terms, it means that, in a province like Quebec, any organization, such as a municipality, a city or a school board could be authorized by a provincial law to establish a list of electors.

The way this is written, it could happen that these bodies would contract with a third-party or a private company for the establishment of a voters' list. If I understood you correctly, you would not like this to happen. Am I correct? A municipality should not be able to make up its voters list by using the data of a federal enumeration or the federal register.

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not suggesting that the Chief Electoral Officer be forbidden from making such agreements. What I am suggesting is that the terms of those agreements be more carefully spelled out. In that respect, I'm more concerned with proposed subsection 71.024(2) than I am with proposed subsection 71.024(1), because proposed subsection 71.024(2) refers to the provision of information already in the possession of the Chief Electoral Officer to provincial governments. I think it should be a condition of any such transfer that the same standards of protection applied at the federal level should also apply to any information that is given to any provincial government by the Government of Canada or any of its agencies.

With respect to the obtaining of information from provincial governments by the Chief Electoral Officer for the purposes of updating the federal voters list, it is the responsibility of the provincial governments to ensure that whatever standards of respect for privacy rights are applicable in a province are of course contained and carried over into any arrangement they make with the Government of Canada.

If I can digress briefly here, a number of provincial privacy commissioners - my counterparts in some of the provinces, which of course includes Quebec, where you have a very vigilant privacy commissioner - are extremely interested in this exercise and intend to take it up with their own governments to ensure that any agreements that are reached respect provincial privacy law.

.0945

Does that deal with your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Yes. You also said that you are concerned by clause 71.024(3) which says:

(3) An agreement mentioned in subsection (1) may require valuable consideration to be provided in exchange for the information given.

I would like you to elaborate on your concerns. To me, this means simply that the government could ask a municipality to pay for the use of the list. I do not quite understand your concern. Could you elaborate?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I don't want to see anybody selling voters lists for any purpose whatsoever.

If there is some expense associated with the administration of an agreement between the Government of Canada or the Chief Electoral Officer and some provincial or municipal body, and the Chief Electoral Officer wants to recover his costs, that's fine. It cost me a dollar to mail you this information; therefore, please send me my dollar. That I can understand. But I would not want to see updated lists being routinely sent off to other agencies or other governments for any other purpose. That becomes marketing of personal information. You can see the difference.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: If a section of the bill provided for automatic inclusion of people in the voters' list, say at the time of birth or at the time of granting Canadian citizenship... There is always some official document issued on such occasions. If that document were used for automatically putting people on the voters' list, would this people's privacy, in your view?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: Yes, you understand me correctly. I do not favour the automatic registration of one particular class of people. It is one of the principles of Canadian electoral practice that you are not forced to vote by law and you are not forced by law to be on a list if you don't wish to be. I think using any of these other federal government documents - such as naturalization papers - to automatically put people onto a voters register is subjecting those people to unequal treatment, and I see no justification for it. If people wish to be on the voters list, they have the right to say so. If they wish to not be on it, they have the right to say that, too.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Harper, please.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Phillips, I have really three subject matters, and I'll try to get to them quickly. I'll base them all on your annual report for 1995-96, although you've repeated the comments here today.

The bottom line for principles is that the act should limit personal information collection to those details needed for Canadians to exercise their right to vote. We've raised the question - and it has been brought to us by single women - about why it is necessary to have gender on an electoral list. Why did you not raise that as a concern?

Mr. Phillips: I understand this question was put to Mr. Kingsley yesterday. I'm paraphrasing, but I understand that he indicated it wasn't really all that necessary - and there were also other pieces of information that were intended to originally be covered with the collection phase, such as telephone numbers.

I must be frank, Mr. Harper. I did not see a particular problem there because their explanation was that it is very helpful to distinguish between males and females who have the same name, for one thing, and that it is a useful piece of information in the problem of identifying and certifying the eligibility of voters. If Mr. Kingsley feels that it's not necessary, I would personally be only too happy to see it removed, yes, absolutely. It is a piece of intimate personal information, and if it's not necessary, why collect it?

.0950

Mr. Harper: Here is my second question. Your second principle is - you've repeated this today using the same words - to collect the information directly from citizens with their knowledge and consent. Maybe you could just clarify for me what the Privacy Act actually says. Is it with the knowledge and consent of citizens of Canada, residents of Canada, or taxpayers of Canada?

Mr. Phillips: The Privacy Act applies to residents of Canada.

Mr. Harper: The reason I ask that is because obviously any political party's concern is for those on the list to be citizens, not non-citizens, which has been a problem. To what extent does the Privacy Act allow the electoral office to access data that would disclose to them whether or not somebody was indeed a citizen?

Mr. Phillips: I'll try to answer that question another way. As I read the act, there are a number of tests set out in it that a person is required to meet to establish citizenship, including attesting to the fact.

It is not strictly speaking a Privacy Act problem for us. It's Mr. Kingsley's problem to decide how he's going to satisfy himself as to the citizenship of any particular person. I think I would be getting well beyond my brief, Mr. Harper, if I were to try to tell this committee how citizenship ought to be certified.

Mr. Harper: The third question sort of relates to your third and fourth principles about limiting the uses of the register and prohibiting the disclosure of personal information.

Often, when we get into these questions generally about registers or government records, constituents will raise the concern that this is not merely a legal problem. We can put in text that these things are illegal and can happen, but this is what they'll say: what is actually the guarantee for these things other than the penalties outlined? Does the privacy commission have any method to monitor the general management and operational procedures of bodies that maintain government data banks to ensure that privacy is not potentially violated in routine ways? Does it monitor, or is it capable of monitoring, their technology practices, such as the way they use modems with major computer systems to ensure that information isn't readily transferred. What is done beyond merely the law to ensure that privacy is protected?

Mr. Phillips: I'll do my best to answer that question.

The Privacy Act gives us the power to conduct audits of the manner in which the agencies of the Government of Canada covered by the act manage their personal information holdings.

We do some of that work. We're a very small office, though, and our resources are extremely constrained, which has always been the case; it's not just a result of government cutbacks. I think that in the 12 years or so that my office has been in existence, we've managed so far to audit fewer than a third of the government agencies and departments that collect personal information.

We would like to do more. Yes, the authority is there. What's missing are the resources.

Mr. Harper: Have you ever conducted an audit of the Chief Electoral Officer, and would you plan to do so after a computerized register was in effect?

Mr. Phillips: Yes. As a matter of fact, we're coming more and more to this kind of a single-issue audit rather than trying to examine the whole of a government department's informational operations. It's just too massive for us to try to manage. But we will pick a single issue and try to look at that.

Yes, if it happens in my term at any rate, we will certainly be continuing to work with the Chief Electoral Officer to see how this is all playing out.

For example, he is going to work with my office in a number of areas here. We are going to help him draft the language for the consent form that will be attached to the income tax return file, and things of that nature.

.0955

I'm less concerned about this particular exercise, Mr. Harper, because it's already built into the system that the only information the Chief Electoral Officer is going to get from Revenue Canada, for example, will be a name and a change of address, nothing else. He will not have on-line access to the Revenue Canada database. There are other data matches that are either going on now or being contemplated that are more problematic from a privacy point of view, but the general answer to your question is yes.

Mr. Harper: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harper.

Mr. Speaker, please.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): My questions are from your August 1996 report. They relate to the second bullet on page 16. It's the bottom line, where you indicate that you'd like to collect information directly from citizens with their knowledge and consent.

Yesterday, in his presentation, Mr. Kingsley seemed to understand that term of reference. We raised the question as to whether he could secure the information. I'm now talking about the initial list. This will be the one set up possibly in 1997. He felt that his best plan was to go to every resident of Canada to ask them the question: do you want to be on the voters list? If so, he would say what information he required.

Look at provincial governments. As one example, Alberta is doing an enumeration in November. They'll go to, supposedly, every household to ask some of the same questions. What is your position with regard to that? Can a province, as a third agency across Canada, or a municipality in some cases, do the work, and would that work be acceptable relative to what you've said here?

Mr. Phillips: Let me state my preference, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly prefer that the Chief Electoral Officer would do his own enumeration under terms and conditions that are laid down by this Parliament. Then we'll all know what's what.

However, the act does provide for the Chief Electoral Officer to make agreements with provincial governments to obtain information for his own list.

Mr. Speaker: That's for the updating of the list.

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I'm talking about the initial list. There is a difference. Maybe you could comment on that as well.

Mr. Phillips: I don't profess to be an electoral historian, at least not to that extent. I can only think of one or two occasions in recent history when the Government of Canada has used a provincial list for anything as important as a federal, national election or referendum. I think it might have happened in the case of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, or one of those more recent exercises when the Quebec government had recently completed an enumeration, and then that list was accepted by the Government of Canada.

But generally speaking, federal referenda, general elections and by-elections are based upon federal enumerations. I think that's for a good reason, because all concerned can then be assured that it meets the requirements of federal law with respect to its composition. I don't know that I could say any more than that.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I understand that.

I guess my real question, once we clear everything away, concerns the enumerators in Alberta. The Government of Alberta will go through a major cost of enumeration in November 1996. Some of these same people, if there's a federal enumeration, will do the federal one as well. We'll use some of their experience to do this.

I guess what this committee has to look at is whether we can make allowances for that to happen if it's a credible list and we can save money. You comment in your report that we're more in that mode of thinking today than we were ten years ago.

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Thank God that's happened.

So I'm just asking, would it be acceptable to you in your role, if an agreement was worked out and it seemed to secure the proper information at certainly a much-reduced cost, for that to happen?

Mr. Kingsley was sort of inferring to us - I was trying to read behind what he was saying - that he didn't want to do that. He thought the Privacy Commissioner would maybe step on him for making a contract with the provincial government.

.1000

Mr. Phillips: I stated my preference here, Mr. Speaker, and I understand your point very clearly.

I could not give you an answer to that question as to yes or no in the abstract. I would then want to know all the terms and conditions that apply to the provincial enumeration before I could say whether, in my opinion, it satisfied the normal processes, tests and protections that apply at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker: So that's really our guideline right there, I would think.

Mr. Phillips: I think I did say earlier in my evidence this morning that I would hope that in any federal-provincial electoral information sharing agreement, the kinds of principles that are embodied in the federal Privacy Act, which this Parliament supports, would be embodied so that everybody would be conforming to, and probably speaking of, the same standard.

Mr. Speaker: So under those terms, what I'm suggesting is possible.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly would like to have a look at it, yes. Pardon me for being a little careful.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Frazer, you're next.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Phillips, we have some divergence of opinion. I'm looking at your comment on page 15 of your report with regard to the annual disclosure of lists. It appears to me that with the computer age being what it is, any agreement for the federal list to be shared with provinces and municipalities and so on... It's relatively easy to generate a list for that specific requirement when it comes.

I would tend to agree with your comment that there doesn't seem to be any particular point, since this is for election requirements, for this list to be generated arbitrarily every year. This is not only from the point view of whether the information is really required, but also because of the expense that is generated by doing that and distributing it.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Frazer, I think this is something that members of Parliament have to decide for themselves. Whether the principal purpose of this statute is to certify the eligibility of citizens of this country to vote in a manner that is convenient for the electoral process or whether the statue is going to be viewed as something with more than one purpose, such that it is also to serve as a convenience for the political system generally for contacting prospective voters, I would hesitate to give advice. I would simply remind everybody that we're living in an age when ordinary people are harassed almost daily by corporations, organizations and individuals who have a selling or marketing proposition of some kind.

A substantial degree of resistance is building up. Our own surveys support that. There have been a number of surveys that show the public is developing a pretty strong resistance to what it considers to be excessive marketing, which has been made easier as a consequence of communications and computer technology. It's for you to decide to what extent the political process is going to deal with that particular concern.

The provision of annual lists of electors to members of Parliament and registered parties is of course an invitation and temptation to increase the degree of solicitation of prospective voters by people in the political system.

You'll have to make that judgment. I certainly am not going to put myself in the position of trying to make it for you. I would just point out to you the climate in which marketing and solicitation of all kinds is now being viewed by the general public.

.1005

Mr. Frazer: I don't wish to back you into a corner, and we accept the responsibility that it is our decision to be made as to what goes in there, but would you be willing to say that you would recommend that this not be part of the legislation?

Mr. Phillips: I have to speak for the privacy interest in matters of this kind, Mr. Frazer, and it would be my preference that, taking the purist view, the voters list be used and seen as a list whose principal purpose is to certify eligibility to vote, not to be used as a political marketing tool. That's a preference.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Frazer.

Dr. Pagtakhan, please.

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.

In the survey you had done respecting resentment of excessive marketing... From that data and others that you know of, or from intuition, what proportion of the electorate likely would opt not to be on a voters list permanently?

Mr. Phillips: I have not done any survey, nor am I aware of any, although perhapsMr. Kingsley's office has done one, that indicates how many people would not want to be on a voters list. The only statistic I have heard on that subject, and I give it to you second hand, because it came to me from the Chief Electoral Officer, is that, on average, about 75% or 80% of the eligible people would have their names on the list. But I am not an expert in that field, believe me.

Mr. Pagtakhan: In your report you indicated that the purpose of the list is for conducting elections. You then showed concern that it is used for repeated canvassings by political parties, and you just now mentioned that it indeed ought to be only to certify the eligibility of voters and therefore for conducting elections. Having heard those phrases now, what is your understanding of the electoral process if the list is to be used only for electoral purposes? What would constitute electoral purpose vis-à-vis privacy?

Mr. Phillips: It is to be used when an election is under way.

Mr. Pagtakhan: So you would relate it to the issuance of the writ?

Mr. Phillips: Generally speaking, yes.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms Catterall, please, and then Mr. Laurin.

Ms Catterall: Let me go back to some comments you made. You talked about the right not to be on the voters list and the right to be on the voters list. One of my concerns is that, as it's set up here, it tends to favour not being on the voters list rather than the right to be on the voters list. The results are likely to be discriminatory against certain groups of society.

Let me tell you what my concern is. It's as respectful of my privacy if I receive a card stating that this is the information they have on me and if I wish to be on the voters list I need do nothing. If the information is incorrect or I do not need to be on the voters list, I must return the card. Is there any reason that having to let them know in a positive way that I wish to be on the voters list is preferable, from a privacy point of view, to stating that I will be on the voters list as of a certain date unless I let them know that I prefer not to be? We're back to negative option billing here, aren't we?

Mr. Phillips: I was about to say that the cable subscribers of Ottawa might have provided at least part of an answer to your question, Ms Catterall.

In my view, the issue of negative consent, as opposed to positive consent, involves this difference. If you do or do not wish to be on a voters list, you must signify by a definite act. I put to you that this requires that people actively turn their minds to the question of whether or not they want to be on it. They have to tell us; therefore, they will think about it. That, in my view, gets you much closer to the ideal of an informed decision than when people say they don't know anything about this and it's not worth worrying about. This does not, in my view, satisfy the highest tests of seeking an informed decision from the individual concerned.

.1010

Ms Catterall: Let me give you two other problems I see with that. Let me give you one, because the second one has gone out of my mind temporarily.

My point, as I mentioned, is that this process should not be discriminatory in any way. In my view, the potential for the requirement to do something means that if I'm lucky enough to get on the voters list during an enumeration, I don't have to give my consent. An enumerator can find out from a next-door neighbour or from my parents that I've turned 18 or that a new family has moved in, and that person is on the voters list. They can then ask to be taken off if they don't want to be on it, but they are put on without their consent in the first place. You might have some problems with that.

My concern is that by making it such a literacy-based decision, we potentially discriminate against people who do have literacy problems, who do have language problems, or who are blind or hard of sight, and that's something I'm very anxious to avoid.

This is outside your domain, but which is the greater risk, that somebody will be on the list simply because they forgot to return a card or that somebody will not be on the list because they couldn't read the card or didn't understand its implications?

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm going to jump in to get the question and an answer. We have one last question and then we must move on.

Mr. Phillips: Nobody can answer that question, Ms Catterall. I don't know whether a person would feel more aggrieved by being on the list or off the list by misadventure.

I understand your point about disadvantaged people, particularly people who can't read or write or who are blind. But I presume that special efforts and arrangements are made in the existing electoral process for disadvantaged people, and I presume similar arrangements could be made under the new act.

I want to make one brief, general statement about this act. What it says to me, anyway, as one citizen, is that in the process of rewriting our Elections Act... To provide a permanent list to take advantage, if you like, of modern technology and to give us a more efficient electoral process, I see reflected in this act a recognition by its drafters of the high privilege of a vote, that it is not something that is indiscriminately cast about, and that, although every citizen is entitled, every citizen is expected to think about this privilege and to really want to do it.

We've taken the view in this country from the outset that we're not going to force people to vote if they don't want to, because it is the view of parliaments over time that a vote should be an informed vote, cast by somebody who understands and cares about the quality of that vote. I see that reflected in this bill and in the care that's been taken to ensure that people do think about what they're doing.

I'm getting well beyond a privacy issue when I say that, but that's how I read the care thatMr. Kingsley and his staff have taken to make sure there are stages in this bill that people have to think about to give an informed decision about whether they wish to vote or not to vote.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll have a very brief, last intervention from Mr. Laurin, and then we'll thank the witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Phillips, I would like you to explain to me what we can do to protect people's privacy. When a citizen is born, that child's name goes to a citizens register. The child did not ask for this. The child did not ask to be registered but is automatically put on the citizens register. Nobody asks for the child's permission.

.1015

Why could we not do the same thing with the voters' list once that person reaches the age of 18? Why is it contrary to privacy in one case and not in the other? It is the same thing with the census every five or ten years. People do not have a choice. They have to fill out the census form, by law.

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I think the state is entitled to certain basic information such as whether a newborn person is resident in the country, but when you get to things such as voters lists and whether people wish to vote or not, you're dealing with an adult human being who has rights, one of those being the decision whether to participate in a political process or not.

With great respect, it really does seem to me that those two issues are easily differentiated and don't represent at all the same kind of problem. A newborn child at the age of one day or a couple of weeks is not a person with any great expertise in the political system in the country, as a consequence of which... There's a difference in kind as well as degree there.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips. We genuinely appreciate your intervention and participation this morning. It's been most helpful. I know that it has certainly clarified a number of issues, and it's important to this committee, particularly as it deals with the issue of privacy. We appreciate the grade that Mr. Kingsley has received, and hopefully we'll get the same grade from you when we pass the bill.

Mr. Phillips: If you like, Mr. Chairman, just before I leave, we would be happy to give you a quick summary of some of the minor amendments.

The Chairman: I think that would be most helpful, as committee members will be conducting the clause-by-clause at the beginning of next Wednesday or Thursday.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we'll suspend for four minutes to allow for the next panel.

.1017

.1023

The Chairman: Colleagues, we're resuming our order of reference as it relates to Bill C-63.

[Translation]

Welcome to Mr. Côté.

[English]

from the office of the chief electoral officer for Quebec. I understand, Mr. Côté, that you're accompanied this morning by some of your colleagues. Perhaps you would introduce them yourself.

Ladies and gentlemen, I understand that Mr. Côté has a brief opening statement and then will take our normal list of questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-F. Côté (Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec): I would like to introduce to you Mr. Eddy Giguère, my assistant; Mr. Jacques Drouin, who is in charge of polling; Mr. François Casgrain, Director for Public Affairs; Ms. Thérèse Fortier, Communications; and Mr. Jean Poirier, who is in charge of the establishment of the permanent computerized electoral list.

I would ask committee members to please accept my apologies for not having available the English version of my brief. The notes I have were finalized as late as last night. I do apologize, but copies of my notes have been given to the interpreters and since I will be keeping to my text for the first part of the meeting, it will be relatively easy for you to follow.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Does the witness have a French version that could help us as we follow along with the interpretation?

Mr. Côté: We have copies available for the members who would like to have one.

.1025

Mr. Langlois: I would appreciate having one.

Mr. Côté: I believe copies have been supplied to the clerk of the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand the version is only available in French. Is that right?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: We have copies of the text that could be handed out to committee members. You could follow along with the French text as you listen to the interpretation.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman,...

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Catterall.

[Translation]

Ms Catterall: ...I would like to ask Mr. Langlois if he finds it acceptable that the text be given to committee members in one official language only.

Mr. Langlois: I do not want to have a debate about this with Ms Catterall. The issue arose last week with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. When the witnesses arrived, they had with them the English text of the presentation. Given the short time frame, they had not been able to get it translated. Since the text had not been distributed before the meeting and people were reading it as we went...

[English]

The Chairman: Colleague, I think Mrs. Catterall is trying to make the point that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You have often badgered in the past. I think that is her point.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: That is what we just said.

The Chairman: No problem. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Mr. Côté: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure for me to appear once again before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that has been asked to study Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.

In May 1994, I was invited to appear before this committee to share with it Quebec's referendum experience. In 1990 and 1991, I was five times called upon to participate in the work of the Lortie Commission. The expertise of the Chief Electoral Officer was also requested in January 1993 by a special committee of the House of Commons on electoral reform, as well as in June 1994 by a joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate studying Canada's foreign policy.

I would like to begin by putting my participation into perspective and, to do so, I should briefly recall the following facts. After more than 15 years of reflexion and initiatives aimed at rationalizing the procedure used to establish voters' lists, the Quebec National Assembly, in June 1995, passed a permanent electoral list establishment act, to be followed for all provincial, municipal and school elections. It is the Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec who was assigned the task of overseeing the establishment and the regular updating of this list.

The permanent electoral list combines an electoral roll established following the enumeration of September of 1995, that was used for the referendum, and a roll of territories. The enumeration was carried out by enumerators recommended by political parties from both sides of the House and was followed by a revision by a board of revision, made up of revisors recommended by each of the two national committees.

The work involved in the establishment of this list began in the fall of 1995 and should be completed by May 1st 1997, just a few months away. In the course of the work relating to the establishment and introduction of the permanent electoral list, we were faced - as is still the case - with numerous difficulties that we had to resolve because we were, so to speak, in uncharted waters.

In the process, our expertise has become more solid, and it is this expertise that I wish to share with you this morning. I will furthermore do my best to answer all of your questions relating to our work timetable, the means used to establish the list, our updating procedures, etc. I have already introduced the members of my staff who have accompanied me today.

Please understand also that as the person responsible for administering an act the purpose of which is to enable all Quebec voters to exercise their democratic rights and since I am accountable of my actions to the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, it is my duty to be guarded in my responses to any question of a clearly political nature.

.1030

Before, however, moving on to the questions, please allow me to briefly outline for you the basic principles that in my view must be taken into consideration in the establishment and use of a permanent electoral list: firstly, comprehensiveness of basic information on voters, namely first name, last name, sex, date of birth and home address, including postal code, and mailing address, if applicable; second, respect of the qualification of voters for each jurisdiction for which a list is produced; third, respect of the choice of the voter to have his or her name added or not to the list of electors; four, establishment of information updating mechanisms for voters whose names appear on the permanent voters' list. These mechanisms must be consistent, complete, rapid and diversified.

These are the principles that guided the drafting of the Quebec act and that continue to guide us in the application of each of the methods and modes of operation.

I would now like to outline some of the clauses of Bill C-63 that raise concerns in my view. I will be very clear in the statements I am about to make. When I talk about the register, I will be rederring to Bill C-63. When I talk about the permanent electoral list, I will be talking about our list, in Quebec.

Regarding the establishment of the Register of Electors, the Act states that this will be done based on the information supplied by an enumeration. There is no provision allowing for the use of existing provincial electoral lists for this purpose.

Since an enumeration is planned for next spring and that at that time the permanent electoral list of Quebec will be available and up-to-date, I am somewhat surprised to note that the legislator has not provided for the possibility of using this list for the establishment of the register, which would bring about considerable savings.

As far as the enumeration and subsequent register updating process are concerned, I am also surprised to see that it is not mandatory to obtain voters' dates of birth. I nevertheless hasten to add something here. Please do not be taken aback by everything that appears in my notes: these are simply questions that we have and perhaps the answers to these questions are very simple ones. These are questions that flow from our reading of the bill. The date of birth of voters is optional.

Given that in our view the date of birth is often an essential means of identification for organization lists, what assurances will we have that the updating information supplied for the purposes of keeping an up-to-date register will be sufficiently reliable if voter identification is based solely on the name of the voter and perhaps the address?

The bill stipulates that the information required for updating the register will be drawn from the information supplied to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by provincial organizations, on condition that these organizations consent to such transfers of data.

One must be aware that in Quebec, organizations that hold such information are regulated by the Referendum Act, the Freedom of Information Act and by very restrictive provisions regarding information-sharing. Amendments to legislation would therefore be required for such information exchange agreements with Quebec to be carried out.

What alternative sources could the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada turn to if a province were to refuse to transfer information held by provincial organizations?

For its part, the Quebec legislator, upon passage of the Loi sur l'établissement de la liste électorale permanente, or permanent electoral list establishment Act, considered that the information contained in this list could be useful in the establishment of a federal list. It thus introduced a specific provision - clause 40.42 of our act, authorizing the negotiation of an agreement to this effect between the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec and his federal counterpart. It seems to me that this mechanism should be the one favoured for the updating of information on Quebec voters.

The power granted to the Chief Electoral Officer under clause 71.02 of the bill, authorizing him to delete from the Register of Electors the name of any person who fails to reply within 60 days to a written request for information by the Chief Electoral Officer, is in my view quite extraordinary.

It also surprises me that the bill grants the returning officer, at the federal level, decision-making powers regarding the revision preceding a poll. Indeed, a returning officer - at least according to our interpretation of the bill - could be called upon to render a decision on the removal from the register of the name of a voter, without having had the opportunity to personally hear out the voter in question.

Must it be repeated that the deletion of a voter from the register is a decision that affects a fundamental right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter and that, as such, it must be subjected to the rules applicable to decisions of a quasi-judicial nature?

In my view neither the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada nor the returning officer should be allowed to take such measures. This should be left up to the boards of revision.

Bill C-63 stipulates that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada may enter into agreements with chief electoral officers of other jurisdictions to supply them with information required for the establishment of their own voters' lists.

Furthermore, voters are not obligated to supply to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada information that might be required by provinces wishing to use the federal list. There might even be reason to question the federal list's capability of satisfying the requirements and expectations of provincial authorities.

.1035

Those are but some of the issues raised by our reading of Bill C-63. Some people have brought up concerns relating to the use of Quebec's permanent electoral list for the establishment of the Register of Electors of Canada, given the residency requirement set out under the Quebec Election Act, a requirement that is not part of the federal act.

In Quebec as in each of the other provinces, there is a six month residency requirement before being eligible to vote, but this waiting period is not required to be a voter in federal elections.

The question here is: what consequences would the use by the federal government of a provincial list for the establishment or updating of the Register of Electors have. An analysis of the demographic statistics relating to interprovincial migrations would enable one to arrive at an estimation of the number of voters whose names would not be on the Quebec list supplied to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada because of this six-month waiting period.

Between 1980 and 1990, migrations into Quebec from other provinces varied between 20,000 and 30,000 persons per year. For the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the numbers were 24,366 and 27,758 respectively. You must remove from these totals the young people of less than 18 years of age, who over the last two years accounted for 22.8 per cent of newcomers. The revised totals of new arrivals in Quebec whose names could be added to the federal electoral list would be 18,812 and 21,426. These statistics being established on an annual basis, the number of persons involved could be cut in half, given that it is for one year whereas we base our numbers on six months. We could therefore say that roughly 9,000 to 11,000 persons whose names do not appear on the Quebec list could be eligible to vote in federal elections. They would represent 0.2 per cent of the voters on the permanent electoral list.

It must further be stressed that there will obviously be a lag between the recognition as a voter of a newcomer to a province and the updating of the federal register with the new address of the voter, which will lessen the impact of provincial six-month residency requirements. Furthermore, since a revision of the list is required before the holding of elections, persons whose names do not appear on the federal preliminary list would be able to use this mechanism to have their names added so as to be able to exercise their right to vote.

I would now like to give you some information regarding a problem that was brought up yesterday. I am expecting a question on this and I will try to answer it in advance. When we say that the provincial list will be able to be reused at the federal level, the question that arises right away is the following: can we take the 5,087,000 or 5,070,000 Quebec voters and put them in the proper polling divisions at the federal level? The answer to that question is in my view relatively simple. As a matter of fact, we already have some experience in this area, because we are right now going through the process of placing voters in the right polling divisions with the municipalities. It is in my view a technical problem that is quite easy to resolve.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I thank you for your attention. My officials and myself are now at your disposal to answer all of your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. You gave such a great presentation nobody wants to ask a question.

[Translation]

Go ahead please, Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: It is a Hallowe'en joke, Mr. Chairman. I would like to wish everyone a happy Hallowe'en. I hope that all of the children will be careful with their treats.

Thank you, Mr. Côté, for your presentation. Your expertise in matters of elections and consultations of the people goes back quite some time. How many elections have taken place in Quebec under your guidance?

Mr. Côté: I have held this position for 18 years and the three referendums held in Quebec in 1980, 1992 and 1995 were all carried out under my responsibility.

Mr. Langlois: And the general elections in-between.

Mr Côté: And the general elections and by-elections held during that period of time.

Mr. Langlois: You also were sent on foreign assignment, namely to Haiti, among other countries.

Mr. Côté: Yes, in Haiti I became personally involved as the official representative of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States. Furthermore, several members of my staff regularly participate in aid and cooperation missions in support of elections in foreign countries, particularly in francophone Africa.

.1040

Mr. Langlois: If I may, Mr. Côté, I will ask you all of my questions at once and you could perhaps answer them all when I am done, because there may be some overlap.

If I understood correctly, in Quebec, it is Bill 40, passed on June 16, 1995, that authorizes you to establish a permanent electoral list. According to the front page of the act, that was approved by the Lieutenant Governor, the bill itself was tabled on December 5, 1994, was approved on second reading on December 16 1994 and was enacted six months later, on June 15, 1995, the day after its passage on third reading.

I seem to remember that public hearings were held in Quebec between December 16 and June 15. Over this six-month period, what objections - not political, but rather administrative and technical - were made as regards the establishment of a permanent electoral list in Quebec?

I would also like to ask you if we might consider using Quebec's permanent electoral list instead of carrying out an enumeration in Quebec and in the other provinces, as provided for in Bill C-63, for the purpose of saving money. How much money would we save if we used the list that you are in the midst of establishing?

You talked a bit about the issue of polling divisions. I would like you to tell us a bit more about the reliability of your list. This was questioned yesterday. We were told that Quebec's list as it now stands is not necessarily reliable. What standards guided you in the establishment of this list?

I would like to know if the list that you are setting up will be outdated come spring, once the list federal authorities might prepare is in place.

As for the establishment of the Register of Electors and the importance of birthdates, you talked about this in your presentation. Mr. Phillips also dealt with this a little earlier. Mr. Laurin brought the matter up twice in his questions to the Privacy Commissioner. I would like you to say a bit more about the sources of information for the updating of the permanent electoral list of Quebec.

I would also like to know why Quebec decided to use the Régie de l'assurance-maladie, which is Quebec's health insurance board, as it's principal source for the updating of the electoral list. Why did you not use as your main source, or even as complementary ones, the ministry of Revenue of Quebec, the Société d'assurance automobile du Québec, or auto insurance board of Quebec, or even the register of births, marriages and deaths?

Lastly, how do you go about reaching and registering those residents who reach the age of 18 or who obtain their Canadian citizenship?

Mr. Côté: I can answer five, six or seven questions. The first one dealt with the passage by the National Assembly of Bill 40, which has since been incorporated into the Quebec Election Act. It is true that it was tabled on December 5, 1994. The government's intent at the time was to proceed as quickly as possible. Between December and June, here is what happened. First of all, there were questions by the Opposition, but various organizations were also invited to appear before a parliamentary commission.

I can quickly list off the major organizations that appeared: the Ombudsman, the Commission des droits de la personne, the Commission d'accès à l'information, the Union des municipalités du Québec, the Union des municipalités régionales du comté de Québec, the Association of Municipal Clerks, the Quebec Federation of School Boards, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Association québécoise des commissions scolaires, the School Council of the Island of Montreal. If I have missed any, I will let you know.

.1045

All of these organizations that appeared before the commission presented their views in the form of briefs. As regards the concerns that were brought up, the one that comes to mind right away is the protection of personal information. The Commission des droits de la personne and the Ombudsman were quite adamant about that issue.

And what was the final outcome of that? The outcome is a very high degree of caution - you will see this later when I talk to you about the Quebec health insurance board - in exchanges of information between the Chief Electoral Officer and government organizations. The preservation of the exchange of personal information is of great concern to us.

I will now move on to your second question, because I will be coming back to this later. You asked if instead of carrying out a complete enumeration next spring, in Quebec, it might not be possible to use the Quebec list. I believe it would. This would obviously require certain exchanges and certain agreements, but what is already in place with Elections Canada is excellent. In our estimation, this could easily save us $15 million. That is what an enumeration in the province of Quebec costs.

Will our list be out-of-date by then? I must go into more detail on what we are doing right now regarding the establishment of this list. After the 1995 enumeration, we drew up a list that was immediately used for the referendum. But what have we been doing since then?

My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong or perhaps add further details, but here, in broad terms, is what we are doing right now. First of all, there is a very important basic principle. We have an agreement with the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec, the health insurance board of Quebec. But let me come back now to the issue of the protection of personal information. We do not have access to the files of the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. It is the Régie that supplies us with the information. So what do we do and what are we doing? We take our 5,080,000 name electoral list and we hand it over to the Régie de l'assurance-maladie that reviews it.

Why the Régie de l'assurance-maladie? Because the Régie, or health insurance board, thanks to its agreement with the auto insurance board of Quebec, the Régie des rentes, or Quebec pension board, and several other provincial organizations, including the civil register, has the most up-to-date list of addresses to be found in the whole province of Quebec. It is constantly being updated. The Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec covers some 7.2 million persons. As soon as our list is handed over to the Régie, it does a comparison to see if names are spelled properly, if the right first name is used, etc. This is where the date of birth comes into play, so that we do not wind up with what we call "doubles". There might for example be twins who have the same initials and the same date of birth. For such cases, we then look at the address.

This cross-checking supplies us, within a very few days, with a list of persons for whom there are problems with the address, the spelling of the name, their age, etc. We then write to these persons to verify the accuracy of the information we have on our permanent electoral list. Following that, there will be another step, that we have called the matching operation, beginning in December-January.

It is a second step. First of all, there is the accuracy of the names on our list. And we get in touch with voters to check up on this. The second operation is aimed at ensuring that voters are placed in the proper polling division. This is what we call matching, because there are two lists. There is the electoral roll and there is the roll of territories. We must ensure that when we supply an electoral list for provincial elections - and the same principle applies for federal elections - the names of the voters in a given geographic area correspond to the proper addresses. In English, the concept is that of the "main residence".

.1050

In March, or April at the latest, we will have an electoral list drawn from the 1995 enumeration, but updated. The next step will be the putting into place of the list. And how will the "operationalization" of the list, once it is in place, in May, be carried out?

The principle is the same. We for example expect that we will have to get in touch with 75,000 people every month, because of all the changes of addresses, all of the moving around that people do. But there is a basic principle that is set out in the act: that of the accountability of voters.

For example, the Act states that when a voter moves, he or she must let us know. People usually notify the Post Office, the auto insurance board, the Régie, etc. We are simply asking voters to notify us as well. However, even if they fail to do so, thanks to the information that will be forwarded to the Régie de l'assurance-maladie, we will be aware of these changes of address, because there is an underlying principle that we must not lose sight of and that is of constant concern to us. And it is the following: a citizen of Quebec who is an eligible voter is free to ask that his or her name appear or not appear on the list. There is complete freedom in this area. Some people, and it is difficult to establish their number with any degree of certainty, refuse to have their name put on the list.

The purpose of the matching process, therefore, is to ensure that the names on our list match the names that are registered with the Régie. How do things work with the Régie? Further to the comments made by the various organizations that appeared before the commission, namely the Ombudsman and the Commission des droits de la personne, a memorandum of understanding, approved by the access to information commission in particular, was entered into with the Régie. This memorandum of understanding is now in the public record and the process is well established. The protection of personal information is a constant concern for us as well as for the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec.

I believe I spoke briefly about the importance of the date of birth. In a permanent computerized electoral list system, there is not much basic information required. You need the last name, the first name, the sex and the home address. Why do we believe that the date of birth is important? Take, for example, those persons who reach the age of 18 and have therefore become eligible to vote. We will receive from the Régie de l'assurance-maladie - as was the case for the municipal elections that will be taking place in a few days - the names of all of the persons who reach the age of 18. This is why the date of birth is important.

What do we do with these voters who have reached the age of 18? We write to them and we ask them if they want their name to be placed on the list.

On this issue, I should tell you that in the case of the latest such operation that we undertook, the response rate on the part of the young people who had reached the age of 18 surpassed our expectations. Furthermore, we will also be receiving from the Régie de l'assurance-maladie data on deaths. This does not really tie in with the date of birth. When a person dies, we cannot expect him or her to appear. Forgive me: what I just said was in bad taste. But when a person dies, his or her name must be deleted from the list.

It is a way of helping the computer carry out a proper verification of the identity of voters. This is why we have been wondering why the birthdate is optional under the bill. There may be an answer to that, but I am not aware of one.

I dealt briefly with the sources we call upon for doing our updates. I explained why we have an agreement with the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. You touched upon a final point, that of citizenship.

As far as citizenship is concerned, the problem, for us, is the following.

It is obvious that in the case of a person who has acquired citizenship and who meets the other requirements set out in the act, namely who has resided in Quebec for at least six months, is over18 years of age, etc., his or her last name, first name, address, etc. will be written in.

We are in the midst of discussions with the federal Department of Citizenship in order to systematically obtain from the department the details of all new certificates of citizenship that are handed out.

.1055

We hope there will be agreement. Negotiations will be rather long and laborious, but I am hoping for a positive outcome.

As soon as we receive information about a new citizen - because three years down the road he or she may be in a position to claim at least six months' residency in Quebec - what will we do? We will write the new citizen to ask the following: "You now have your Canadian citizenship, which is a basic requirement under the Charter in order to vote, and you meet the other requirements. Could you confirm this for us?" We will therefore write the person and ask him or her to confirm that our information is correct. That is my answer to your question on citizenship. I believe I have covered nearly all of your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Dr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan: I would like to come to what is understood as the definition of the term or phrase ``electoral purpose''. What is your understanding of ``electoral purpose''?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: This is a very interesting question that has an impact on our act. I am pleased that you mention "electoral purpose". An electoral list can only be used for electoral purposes. What do we say in the act in this regard?

In Quebec, we could use the permanent electoral list for the purposes of provincial and municipal elections and, perhaps, school elections. There is in our act a clause that states that any person who uses an electoral list for purposes other than electoral - and the word electoral covers various situations: by-elections, general elections, referendums in municipalities and school elections - would be liable to heavy fines. Why is this provided for in Quebec? We believe that voters should be able to trust us at all times. They must have the certainty that the electoral list their name is included in will not be used by some merchant or other.

How will we go about ensuring that this is the case? When elections are going to be held, we will supply the list to the authorities involved as well as to the political parties so that the parties have an electoral list, but they may only use it for electoral purposes. As I have just said, our act sets out very steep fines for anyone who ventures to use a list for purposes that are not electoral.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: On your concern about giving the authority to revise the list to the returning officer, you related that to absence of a hearing and perhaps an appeal mechanism. Would your concern disappear if we were to ensure there is a mechanism to appeal the decision of the returning officer to revise the list or first to conduct a hearing with the concerned person, or person in question?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: If I understood correctly, what you are saying is that the first verification could be entrusted to the returning officer or the Chief Electoral Officer, as is set out in the bill. We believe that the right to have one's name appear on the list is such an important and fundamental one that the power to delete it must rest with a quasi-judicial organization. But most important of all, the voter involved must be given the opportunity to be heard. This is why what we have in Quebec and what we recommend in what I have just laid out for you is a board of revision.

First of all, a board of revision - that of Quebec and that of the federal government are comparable - is made up of revisors who are appointed following recommendations made by the political parties.

Secondly, the decisions of these boards of revision, as quasi- judicial organizations, are final and irrevocable. But they are only rendered once the person involved has been heard. Every effort must be made to hear a person out before deleting his or her name. This is the way in which we will be proceeding and I can assure you that the means we have at our disposal to get in touch with voters are very broad, because the fundamental right to have one's name put on a voters' list is there. Before removing a name, the voter in question must participate directly in the process and the decision must be made by a quasi-judicial organization.

.1100

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: You raised the issue of the Quebec list being available to the federal electoral officer. Do you envision any compensation for such a list, or is it offered gratis?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: No. Our act states that if we supply such a list to Elections Canada, we will be given financial compensation. I believe that that is normal, firstly because governments are experiencing financial difficulties, but also because this involves a considerable amount of work and expense on the part of Quebec. We are open to exchanges and discussions on this issue. If Elections Canada were ever to ask us for our list, my recommendation to the government - because it is the government that will be making the decision - would be to be reasonable in its request for financial compensation.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Mr. Côté, I must ask you the following question. If there were ever an election act or bill that violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, am I to understand from what you have told us that it is the Charter that should take precedence?

Mr. Côté: Yes. I believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should take precedence, whether it be the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter which is in some areas more precise or more demanding. It is an unavoidable reference point.

Mr. Bélanger: Do you believe that the government should have reintroduced third party expenditure limit mechanisms, and I am speaking here of the clause that was declared ultra vires by the Alberta courts?

Mr. Côté: I consider the question to be hypothetical. Should it have been done? Should it be done? I am a little uncomfortable commenting on that before a parliamentary committee. I have certain opinions on the matter, but it seems to me this goes beyond the scope of the committee's task.

I do not want you to get the impression that I am trying to skirt around the issue, but you are aware... Listen, I will attempt to summarize the situation in the following way.

You are familiar with the provisions of the Quebec act in this area, provisions that are the only ones of the kind in the world and that bring very positive results in our view. They are being challenged and questioned. There are decisions that have been rendered in Quebec by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. There are cases that will be heard very soon by the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has rendered its decision on the issues that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec, then I believe we will... Obviously, it goes without saying, we will submit to the decisions of the Supreme Court. At that stage, definitive conclusions will be able to be drawn.

What is important is that in Quebec, as far as political party financing is concerned, there is a very strong social consensus surrounding the provisions that have been put in place. They go back to Bill 2, in 1979-80.

It brought about, in all Quebecers, a deep attachment to this way of going about things, that is not always easy, mind you. I am not saying that there are not any loopholes, that there are not ways of going around it. There always are, but the general attitude flowing from this way of doing things, regarding non-intervention by third parties for example, is clearly entrenched in society's mores. A radical change at the National Assembly would be required to modify that, because the National Assembly and all of the political parties have always respected these provisions.

Two things would be required: either a decision of the Supreme Court stating that the system is not good and that it is back to the drawing board for us, or a change in our society's orientation.

Mr. Bélanger: I believe that a majority of Canadians share this attitude regarding expenditure limits, and I do not believe anyone is questioning that. However, you say that it goes further, especially as regards third parties.

In your view, the government should have established a limit in the bill.

Mr. Côté: When I ask whether or not the present government should have written that in, it is hypothetical. In Quebec, it is perhaps a historical issue. The control of election expenses was established in 1963. The control of contributions by persons was very precisely set out in 1979. The two go hand in hand.

When there are elections, be it a referendum, a general election or a by-election, why do we not allow third party involvement? Because the underlying principle of the act is that any expense must be made and authorized by the official representative. Under our legislation, nothing that is done outside of the purview of the official representative is allowed.

.1105

It is true that we have gone quite far, but it is something that is in place and that works quite well.

Mr. Bélanger: And what about the issue of the primacy of the Charter of Rights?

Mr. Côté: We have decisions rendered by courts, by the Court of Appeal. The issue of the Charter has been put forward. The first or the third clause of the Charter allows a legislative assembly to go against the first clause, if this is in the common good, and this is what has been confirmed to date. It remains to be seen if the decisions rendered by the courts of Quebec will be confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bélanger: If I understood correctly, any person living in Quebec sees his or her name put on the list whether or not his or her consent has been given. Is that the case?

Mr. Côté: It is the opposite. When we did the enumeration, in 1995, we went door to door and people had to consent to giving us their name.

Let us say that someone does not want his or her name to be put on the list. We can tell the board of revision, immediately following the enumeration, that we want the name of the person removed. These boards of revision are very important for us. We must ask all new voters, especially those reaching the age of 18, but it is the case for any person who obtains Canadian citizenship, for their consent to have their name added to the list.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Harper, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Harper: Mr. Côté, I wish to thank you for your brief and for having shared your experience with us.

[English]

Just to follow up on Mr. Bélanger's question, you indicated, as I understood it, that if there were a Supreme Court ruling relative to some of these questions, you and your office would be guided by that. In other contexts the Government of Quebec has suggested it might not be willing to follow Supreme Court rulings as they pertain to a future referendum campaign. If there were Supreme Court rulings relevant to that campaign, would you be guided by directives from the Government of Quebec or from the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: First of all, I must say that you ask your question in a clearly political perspective. These decisions will have to be made by the government of Quebec. Will these decisions be in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court or not? This is a squarely political issue.

As for me, I am first and foremost accountable to the 125 members of the National Assembly. My first duty is to follow the rules of conduct or the directives that are given to me by the National Assembly.

That being said, if I have the choice, as a citizen or as the Chief Electoral Officer, of abiding or not by a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, then my answer will obviously be yes. But I make a distinction between a directive given me by the National Assembly and a policy established by the government. I talked about the government, but it is also the National Assembly.

I would be caught between a rock and a hard place. I am accountable of my actions to the National Assembly and I get my instructions from it which, if I may say so, is a tremendous advantage. I do not report to the government. I am appointed by the National Assembly and I am accountable to it. That is what is called the theory of the persona designata in British parliamentary law.

In the 17th Century, the House of Commons asked someone to do something in its place because, traditionally, a House of Commons or a legislative assembly renews itself. One day, it was decided that it was too much and someone else was asked to do it. That was the designated person, the persona designata. This designated person is a creation, a product of either the House of Commons, the legislative assembly or the National Assembly, and it reports to the entity that created it. That is how I would answer your question.

[English]

Mr. Harper: I may come back to that later. Let me return briefly to some of the issues in Bill C-63.

Yesterday I put to Mr. Kingsley some very general questions about the cost of assembling a permanent register and the time it seems to be taking in the case of Quebec.

.1110

Based on your experience, how expensive is it becoming to assemble a permanent register in Quebec, and how does that compare with what your historic costs of enumeration have been?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: There are three elements to the answer. First of all, the establishment of the list using a provincial enumeration cost us, in September, $19.4 million, to be precise, according to the official report.

Obviously, it must be underlined that in Quebec there are more provincial ridings than there are at the federal level, namely 125 versus 75, and the number of polling divisions is also greater. Our polling divisions only include a maximum of 300 voters. We have 22,000 polling divisions, which explains the first cost.

Secondly, the act provides for a longer enumeration. Instead of taking a few days to do it, we had six days, so as to be certain that we would cover everyone. I believe we can say that we were successful because the enumeration total was the highest ever. In this $19 million operation, about $12 million were used to pay the enumerators.

And what about the establishment of the list? After these expenditures were made, there were further expenses for the production of a computerized electoral list. Our totals and the estimates correspond quite nicely; it will cost approximately $7 million. You add these numbers together and you wonder if there will be savings over a long period of time. A report adjusting these numbers was published in March 1993, but savings have been planned for right up until the year 1999.

The first savings that Quebec will make will be due to the fact that there will no longer be annual enumerations, because the act provides for something else. There was an enumeration in 1995, but there will not be any more. That alone will save us at least $15 to $18 million. There will be no more enumerations.

The only issue that remains to be decided is whether or not there will be enumerations for school election purposes. As far as municipal elections are concerned, we would be supplying the list, but there are provisions in municipalities for non-residents, etc.

I asked what savings are predicted for 1998 and 1999. Over the four-year period, we will save $15,162,756.89. This is what had been planned for at the time. Today, we know that we will be saving between $15 and $16 million. We will be supplying these lists to provincial, municipal and school authorities, but we eventually plan on charging something for them, even if it is purely symbolic. There will no longer be enumerations, whether for provincial, municipal or school elections.

[English]

Mr. Harper: Are you on a budget in your creation of the permanent list, or have there been unexpected costs as you've been assembling this list and completing this project?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: If I understood correctly, you are asking me if I have a set budget that has been approved.

[English]

Mr. Harper: Obviously some estimates were given on the cost and time length of assembling a permanent voters list. Have those things been fulfilled, or have you run up against unexpected costs and unexpected delays?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: No, not as of yet. What we had planned on, as was stated before the parliamentary commission between January and June, is that it was going to cost us $7 million, but that it could reach $8 million, for example, because there are always unforeseen costs. But it is in that ballpark.

You also asked what the budget was for the Chief Electoral Officer. It is perhaps important that I give you this information. Every year, in order to obtain my annual operating budget, I must appear before a parliamentary commission. This parliamentary commission is free to ask me any question at all, even on expenses of $50, for example - this has already happened - and I must justify all of these expenses.

.1115

A distinctive feature of our act is that when we appear before the parliamentary commission, it does not vote supply. There is no referral to the National Assembly. We simply table our proposal and we must answer all the questions that are asked.

Why is it not voted by the National Assembly? Because if it were, I would be subjected to the Financial Administration Act and to the government and I would not be independent from the Council of Ministers. This way of doing things has been in place for 15 years.

What happens when there is some particular event, as in the case of the enumeration for the referendum we had or for a general election? I have a direct link with the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Minister of Finance is usually obligated to follow up on my requests for funding. Obviously, questions are put to me and I must answer. I cannot make just any old expenditure. The expenses I make must tie in with the organization of the election.

[English]

Mr. Harper: Let me be clear, of course. I'm not in any way asking you to justify your expenditures. What we're merely trying to ascertain is whether budgetary assumptions that are being made behind Bill C-63 will turn out to be accurate.

There has been some concern raised, particularly in the case of British Columbia, whether in fact these permanent voters lists arrangements are turning out to be more cost-effective than traditional enumeration methods. There seems to me no reason they shouldn't be, but some doubts have been raised about that.

One last question on this, and I may have the second round later. I want to clarify a major point in your testimony - the problem of there being a residency requirement in Quebec that would not apply at the federal level. Obviously this is a bit of a snag, but as a general rule, do you see this as problematic in terms of using Quebec lists at the federal level and vice versa, or not?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: I would like to add a piece of information here. I would like to emphasize that as far as the estimates and the timetable we had established at the end of the year are concerned, we have respected them.

As for the six-month residency in the province requirement, that does not exist in Canada, I see no major problem. I set all of that out in my presentation earlier. It may involve some 11,000 or 12,000 persons. That is a very small number out of a total of 5 million, but it nevertheless is a very real problem that we cannot ignore; it is a very real difference. How should this be resolved? Through advertising, when the time comes to revise the federal electoral lists. We would tell these 10,000 persons who change provinces and who reside in Quebec: "Present yourselves before a board of revision in order to have your names added".

At the federal level, citizens can have their name added on election day. We therefore are meeting the requirements of the law. I do not see any major problem there. I do not know if I have answered your question, but that is how I view the situation.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci.

Ms Catterall.

Ms Catterall: I've had some concerns as we have been going through this bill about potential discriminatory effects when you require that people communicate to be added to the list, after it's established.

You mentioned that you just had a first group of young people turning 18 years old and you were pleased with the level of response to be put on the voters list. Can you tell me, as a percentage, how high that response was of those who were eligible, and secondly, whether you have done any research to tell if those young people who did register differ substantially demographically from those who did not register?

.1120

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: I am sorry, but I have been listening to your questions in English; it is easier for me. This is why I always ask if I have answered the question.

Regarding the municipal elections being held this weekend, we contacted 7,601 persons who reached the age of 18. That was for the November 5 elections. The response rate was 65.58%. We did two mailings. This percentage is in our view quite high. These are young people, newcomers to the elections market, if I may use that term. We had to let them know that elections were being held, but we also had to ask them if, once their name was added to the municipal electoral list for the fall, they would also like to have it added to the provincial list.

What about the other categories of voters who are not on the list even though they are Canadian citizens and meet all of the conditions? They say that they forgot or give a thousand and one other reasons. All of a sudden they want their name to be on the list. These voters will have the right to be on the list. They will make their request to us and their name will be added to the list.

We will ask them to supply us with some identification. There is however no single identity paper that satisfies both requirements. We need the last name, the first name, the date of birth and the address. We therefore ask for a passport, a birth certificate, a driver's licence or any other official document that will supply all that is required. We always ask for two pieces of identification because we must have this basic information. It will be very simple because people will send us photocopies of these documents.

We will be writing all of these people as well as all of those who reach the age of 18 to ask them if they want their name added to the list. In the case of young people reaching the age of 18, we do mailings every month.

[English]

Ms Catterall: But have we done any research to find out if the demographics of the 25% who didn't register are different from the demographics of the 75% who did?

I'm concerned about people being left out, people who are illiterate, who are of neither official language, who have a disability, who live in certain geographic areas, or who come from certain economic groups in society. You've had the experience. It might be very helpful for us to know if in fact those factors are irrelevant or if there is a bias in the process.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: I forgot to mention another possibility. Let us take the difference between 65% and 100%. Everyone was notified and we advertised in every municipality, telling people whose names was not on the list to present themselves before a municipal board of revision. This mechanism also allowed the addition of their name to the provincial list.

Obviously, it is impossible to have 100% of voters. There are always people who do not want their name to be on the list and others who are completely disinterested. We will never be able to reach 100%, but the efforts that we have been making have two purposes: first of all, communicate with voters; then notify voters, when lists are being reviewed, that they simply have to present themselves in order for their name to be added.

Ms Catterall: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Before giving the floor to Mr. Laurin, which would wind up the first round, I would like to take down right away the names of colleagues wishing to ask questions in the first round. There are indeed some of you who would like to be added to the list before others have the opportunity to question the witness a second time. Mr. Pagtakhan, I will write your name down for the second round because you have already had your turn in the first.Mr. Bélanger, you too will be in the second round.

Mr. Laurin, you have the floor.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions to begin with.

Mr. Côté, how will a permanent electoral list prevent people who are not entitled to be on it from having their names listed? Every time there is an election, we are always dismayed to discover that persons who were not eligible to vote were added to the list. Electoral fraud still exists. Would the existence of a permanent list eliminate this problem?

Mr. Côté: There are always two elements that ensure that we have a good electoral list that includes everyone who is entitled and excludes those who are not eligible because they do not qualify as voters.

.1125

Beginning with the enumeration of 1995, corrections have been made to the lists through the revision process. A great number of names have been added or deleted through this process. Once we have a permanent electoral list, it will always be revised before any poll, be it municipal or provincial. We will therefore ensure that we have at our disposal an adequate list that recognizes, on the one hand, those who are entitled to be on it and, on the other, those who are not entitled to be on it and whose names should be deleted.

The board of revision is the second stage that I have insisted upon since the beginning. For us, a board of revision should be made up of three people: one person recommended by a political party, a second by another political party represented at the National Assembly, and a chairperson chosen by agreement between the two parties. If they are unable to reach an agreement, then we appoint that third member. These are the three people who would have the power to decide, list, delete or correct.

When people present themselves before the board of revision, they will be required to provide pieces of identification, such as those I mentioned a moment ago.

We have another major concern, this one regarding what we call in our jargon the "doubles". We have attempted something to resolve these cases, and it is something we wish to pursue and to follow very closely. Let me give you a very simple example. The parents and the family of a student live in the Gaspé. The student has decided to reside in Montreal or Quebec City. When the enumeration was carried out, his father had his name put on the list. Let us say that he is 19 years old. There is a provision allowing this 19 year old student, a worker or a person in hospital to register to vote in Montreal. We could therefore find ourselves in a situation where the student is on the list in Montreal as well as in the Gaspé. This is what we call a "double". In a few rare cases there have even been "triples". With the mechanism we are putting in place, the way in which things will be done and the crosschecking we will be carrying out - and a person's age is important in situations such as the one I have just described - , we hope to eliminate any such possibility of double registration.

What is our main concern? That a voter not be able to vote twice. There must be no impersonations. If a student is registered in both Montreal and Gaspé, then someone could use his name and go and vote in Gaspé or in Montreal. The process we have in place now enables us to track down these "doubles" and eliminate them.

Mr. Laurin: You talked earlier about the money that would be saved thanks to the establishment of a permanent electoral list. Do these savings include the savings that would be made at the municipal level as well as at the school level? You talked about savings totalling some $15 million. Does that include the savings made at the municipal level and at the school level?

Mr. Côté: Over a period of four years, yes. What I have given you is the total savings. We have deducted the costs for a provincial, municipal and school enumeration. Let us take the numbers that we had established in 1993. At that time, it had not been decided that the 1995 enumeration would be a longer one. The estimate for the cost of elections at the three levels - provincial, municipal and school - was $26 million. At the end of four years, the savings amount to $15 million.

Mr. Laurin: This will be my final question, Mr. Chairman. Have any requests been made by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to see how we could use the information contained in Quebec's permanent electoral list? The federal government is in the process of establishing permanent federal lists. Has there been any communication, any request on behalf of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada with a view to using or seeing how it could use the information held by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec?

Mr. Côté: Are you alluding to requests for access to the information contained in the provincial electoral list?

Mr. Laurin: To the information contained in the Register.

Mr. Côté: Our permanent electoral list for register updating purposes.

Mr. Laurin: The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is in the process of putting in place a permanent Register of Electors establishment mechanism. In order to accomplish this, has he asked to use the permanent register of Quebec? Is my question clear enough?

Mr. Côté: Yes, fine.

.1130

There are ongoing communications and relations with Elections Canada, in the same way that Elections Canada has relations with other provincial authorities. As to whether or not there have been formal and official requests to use Quebec's electoral list, namely the list of provincial organizations, my understanding is that once the bill is passed, this will be done in a formal and official way. In the meantime, there are exchanges. I believe Mr. Kingsley mentioned to you yesterday that there were information exchanges a few days ago. He gave us his list of addresses. We did not use it, because we use the addresses of voters. We do not need addresses of places where nobody lives. If it so happens that people do move into these places, then their names will be added to the list.

There are also exchanges of information on the geography of the territory, for example. There are verbal and written exchanges with the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in cases where he is entitled to information that we possess. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the Act enables us to do this.

I believe that upon passage of this bill, that will officially and legally authorize the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to do business with Quebec, this will take on a much more formal and official complexion. At that time, some highly political decisions will most probably be taken, because this will have to be done between governments. We shall see.

What I can say is that for my part, the exchanges I have had with Elections Canada have been very cordial, very positive. Let me give you a little example: I have been invited by my federal counterpart for lunch today. Since the two of us are professionals in this area, our relations are...

The Chairman: Excusez-moi, monsieur Laurin.

Mr. Laurin: It is my last question.

[English]

The Chairman: You always tell me that.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Côté, in the context of these relations between the two Chief Electoral Officers that for the time being are very friendly, are there any points of contention regarding co-operation on either side? Are there any points of contention whatsoever regarding the principles or processes used?

Mr. Côté: I would say that there are some questions, and I even mentioned a few of them earlier that I will now delve more deeply into. For example, Bill C-63, in its Schedules, stipulates that the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to call upon those organizations that are responsible for drivers' licences and the civil Register - and in all of the provinces, it is the same list, in Schedule IV.

There is also another provision in the bill authorizing - and this is rather extraordinary - the Chief Electoral Officer to amend Schedule IV; this is in clause 71.014. Let us say, for example, that the Chief Electoral Officer decides to amend Schedule IV and to call upon other organizations than those that appear in this list. Here, we have a concern. We will have to see what the Chief Electoral Officer's position will be. Official requests would have to be made. Would we want to use, which would seem normal to me, the list of the Chief Electoral Officer, in other words our permanent list, or would we have to use as sources provincial organizations' sources of information? We will have to see how the situation evolves.

We are perfectly willing - and this is provided for in clause 40.42 of our Act - to supply a provincial list for purposes of establishing a federal list.

Mr. Laurin: I have no further questions, sir.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sure you do.

I'm going to try to get through the rest of these very quickly.

Mr. Harper, Mr. Langlois, Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Pagtakhan, in that order.

Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper: I'll ask one last question, Mr. Côté. It arises because we are talking about cooperation between the levels of government, but I must also say that I'm asking this only because I think many people in my riding would think it irresponsible of me to pass up the opportunity to ask you this particular question.

It concerns things that have been in the press lately. I must admit that I am relying on press reports myself, but according to these press reports you issued an opinion to the effect that some of the participation in the last referendum campaign, and in the rally in Montreal in particular... You issued an opinion to the effect that some of the violations - or potential violations - of the law, generally in terms of participation, were more serious threats to democracy than the spoiling of ballots on referendum night.

.1135

I will tell you that in terms of where I come from, I think this opinion-I'll say it for myself - as reported, appears to me and to most people I represent to be absolutely outrageous. I don't understand how there could be a more serious threat to democracy than the integrity of the vote or of the ballot itself. I don't understand that, and frankly, I think it has damaged the reputation of the Quebec electoral office in the eyes of many people outside Quebec.

Because of those reports, I ask you to explain what you did say or did write and to explain your perspective on that question.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: It sometimes happens that one uses expressions that are taken out of context, that are blown out of proportion and that are given much more importance than they deserve.

Another parliamentary commission studied the amendments to the Election Act. I had the opportunity to explain my thinking in that regard and to soften what I had stated about the breaches of the law. Obviously, no news reporter picked up on that. You are perhaps familiar with this famous statement by Voltaire: "Give me two lines from someone and I will see to it that the person is hanged". I am somewhat in that situation. For me, it is obvious that any rejected ballot, any person deprived of his or her right to vote constitutes a serious attack on the electoral system.

And what about the referendum? I will come back later to the unity march. What is the situation in that regard? One must be aware that a certain number of ballots are always rejected. The total proportion of rejected ballots for the whole of Quebec was 1.82 per cent. In certain ridings, in the Montreal area in particular, there were cases where the rejection rate was higher than 1.82 per cent. When it reaches 11 per cent, that is high.

In cases such as that, I ask myself two fundamental questions. I must be careful here, because these matters are now before the courts; we are taking those who may have committed illegal acts to court, and the courts have not yet spoken. Therefore, was there some national pattern, a national order? Are we able to conclude that this way of going about things occurred not only in these three or four ridings of Montreal, but also elsewhere?

I could give you what I several times gave to the anglophone media and certain anglophone organizations. I apologize for emphasizing this, but that is the way thing happened. I could order more copies of my report, that clearly explains what happened. The issue of the rejected ballots is a very serious one. But to conclude, as a Montreal paper did yesterday, that the Quebec electoral system is at risk, that democracy is at risk, that everything is falling apart, that we have come back to prehistoric ways... I am sorry, but I do not believe a word of it, because the investigation that I held was carried out with the help of very serious and competent people: three university professors, one of whom was from McGill, and Judge Gold. All of these aspects were examined.

Now we are being told to supply proof of all of that and we are faced with a major difficulty. The evidence will be used in the course of the trials. The right of those involved to a full and complete defence must be safeguarded; there must be evidence and rebutting evidence. The judge will decide whether we are right or wrong. The matter has not yet been resolved. It is before the courts.

But what of the other aspect of third-party intervention, or third-party advertising or advocacy?

.1140

I published a paper on this a few years ago. I would be very pleased to give you a copy of it. It exists in both English and French.

What is the basic principle? The basic principle is the following: does democracy mean that one dollar equals one vote, or that one person equals one vote? That is the fundamental question we must ask ourselves, and you could easily tie that in with what is taking place with the presidential elections in the United States. The articles that appeared in the New York Times two Sundays ago deal most eloquently with this issue.

How important is this issue? Here, financing can only be done by individuals, not by companies, corporations or artificial persons. That is a basic principle. We set a limit of $3,000 per natural person per year per political party; the same formula applies to a support committee in the case of a referendum.

As far as expenses are concerned, it is very tricky and complex. Take, for example, the referendum period, that lasts 40 days. During this 40 day period, according to our Act, the only persons entitled to make expenses are the Yes committee and the No committee. Who in the Yes committee and the No committee? The official representative.

Any other expense aimed at influencing the result of the vote that is not made by one or the other of the committees and their official representatives is illegal. That is the official position of the judiciary in Quebec. That being the case, any expenditures that are made become third-party advertising. There is no point in listing them all here. You are well aware of them because you read about them in the newspapers. I took legal action in this regard because in my opinion, following the investigation we carried out, these were unregulated, unauthorized expenses.

Why do I believe that the issue of third-party advertising is so important? It comes back to the initial principle. Is a dollar equal to a vote or is a voter equal to a vote? Fundamentally, what democracy strives for is the protection of voters' votes and not the purchase of votes, whatever the means used. This is the principle that is in the Act and that guides us.

The Chairman: Merci.

Go ahead please, Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: In answer to Mr. Harper's question, you also answered one of mine. I would like to know how, at the municipal level, when artificial persons have the right to vote, especially in the case of a referendum, you manage to add them to your electoral lists. This is a rather technical question.

My other question is much more general and brings us back to the debate on Bill C-63. I fully understand the status of the Chief Electoral Officer who has for all intents and purposes substituted himself for the legislative assembly or for Parliament and who is in himself an extension of the legislative institution. And now for my question: was Bill 40 drafted by jurists of the Conseil exécutif du Québec or by jurists of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec?

Mr. Côté: The municipal list includes the names of those we call non-residents, the property owners. You may find on the list names of companies or corporations. The Act provides that the municipal clerk or the municipal electoral officer is responsible for adding them to the list, because this information comes from the assessment roll. We therefore are not the ones who establish this list in the municipalities. We establish the list of natural persons; the list of artificial persons entitled to vote is established by the Registrar, who must see to it that there is no double-voting.

How was Bill 40 drafted? We have been involved with this idea of a permanent electoral list for the past 15 years. Fifteen years ago, Bill 3 was tabled at the legislative assembly and following the Minister's resignation, the project vanished into thin air. We have been thinking about this for a long time and this was obviously accomplished with the cooperation of two other government entities, namely the Minister of State for Electoral Reform and the Executive Council, the Legislation Committee.

.1145

We worked very closely with the Legislation Committee on the broad outlines the bill sets out for the way of going about things. The procedure is the following: there must be approval by the Council of Ministers, because the Legislation Committee, that is made up of ministers, must give its approval before the tabling in the National Assembly.

Given that it is a very circumscribed and precise area, all of the departments and government organizations systematically call upon the specialists that can be found within, but final responsibility rests with the government.

Mr. Langlois: I will make my question even more precise, Mr. Côté. Did you give the Executive Council the benefit of your expertise or did the Executive Council ask you to draft a bill containing very precise things, in such a way that you had no room to manoeuvre whatsoever in the drafting of your bill?

Mr. Côté: No, the government expressed to us its desire of having a permanent electoral list and simply asked us to inform it of what the Act should contain. All this was done in a collaborative way.

As far as the 1993 report is concerned, there was a study of the White Papers of 1979-80. It is an on-going process and I will explain to you the way in which we went about things in 1995-96. For us, it was the result of 15 years of reflexion and study. It was therefore normal that the government ask us for advice on the way of going about the establishment of the computerized permanent electoral list it wanted, and we obviously are the ones who supplied the broad parameters.

Mr. Langlois: In Quebec, I believe there is the Commission des institutions that you are accountable to. Was the Commission des institutions informed at that time of the fact that you were working on the drafting of a bill? Was it involved in the drafting of Bill 40?

Mr. Côté: No, it is different in Quebec. It intervened at the bill examination stage.

But there is another issue I would like to clarify. Quebec has another special feature: it has what is called the Comité consultatif. This is in the Act. This advisory committee is presided over by the Chief Electoral Officer, but three representatives of the political parties in the National Assembly, at least one of whom must be an elected member, also sit on it. A tradition evolved over the years: this advisory committee may include the Minister of State for Electoral Reform, the delegate, members of the Liberal Party and of the Parti québécois, the president of the party and the main organizers. In the end, there might be ten or 11 people including myself. We must have a quorum.

Over the course of the years, everything that was developed within the committee was most positive. In fact, it even bothered me a little in the beginning, but today I can only speak well of it. One might say that it is a type of clearinghouse.

There are four players: the three political parties in the National Assembly and the Chief Electoral Officer. I make proposals for change as do the others, we talk about them and we try to reach a consensus. Once there is consensus, the bill is drafted and tabled in the House and parliamentary debate is practically useless. As a matter of fact, we will be re-experiencing this whole process shortly.

I must tell you that for the permanent electoral list of 1995-96, this did not work in Quebec because the Liberal Opposition said that it did not want anything to do with it. The advisory committee did not work that time. But it was the first time in 18 years that it dit not function well as a clearinghouse, if I may once again use that term.

But since then, we have relaunched the advisory committee. There will be amendments to the Elections Act and these will be studied by the advisory ccmmittee.

I recall that in 1989-90, there was a whole stack of amendments to the Act. It was at a meeting of a parliamentary commission, the Committee on Institutions, and the Chairman was simply turning the pages and rattling off the numbers of the clauses. There were no interventions because all of the discussions, all of the compromises, all of the agreements had already come to pass.

In Quebec, the concern of all members of the National Assembly is to constantly improve the Election Act.

I do not believe there has been a single year in the past 18 where we have not discussed improvements to the Act in the Parliamentary Commission. The cooperation of all members is necessary for the Act to be rigorous and as comprehensive as possible. To improve it, we used the advisory committee mechanism.

.1150

It is a little strange because that committee is there to advise on the application of the Act. That is the way the situation evolved, and it is to my mind a very happy outcome.

The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Mr. Bélanger, vous avez dépassé, et de loin, les sept minutes qui vous étaient accordées.

Mr. Bélanger: You got in touch with over 7,000 persons that reached the age of 18 in order to register them or to ask them if they wanted to see their names added to the electoral list. According to your numbers, approximately 35 per cent of these persons did not answer or else said no.

Mr. Côté: Thirty-five per cent of them did not respond to a request made to them by mail.

Mr. Bélanger: Very well. And do you communicate with those people in French only?

Mr. Côté: They have the possibility of asking for an English form, it goes without saying.

Mr. Bélanger: They can request one.

Mr. Côté: Yes.

Mr. Bélanger: But the first contact with them is made in French is it not?

Mr. Côté: Yes, that is the rule in Quebec. But I hasten to add that as regards those who did not respond, the Chief Electoral Officer paid to have very large and clear notices put up in the various municipalities to attract their attention. If a 18 year old does not see the notice, then maybe the parents will. There are all sorts of possibilities. We will see the outcome of that with the elections to be held on the 5th.

Mr. Bélanger: Do you have a process in place to reach the others, the 35% ?

Mr. Côté: It will be difficult to do that. We will put some thought into it, but it is very difficult.

Mr. Bélanger: It may be difficult to know just who they are, because as registers or lists are developed throughout the country, this type of phenomenon will have to be channelled. I was wondering if your Office was planning on doing some analysis of the way to go about reaching the other 35% who want to have their names put on the list.

We asked the question to Mr. Kingsley yesterday, and he said that in the case of the voters' list in British Columbia, only 200 individuals had stated that they did not want their names to appear on it.

This is why my impression is that these 35% are not people who did not want to be registered, but rather people who were somewhat negligent, who forgot, who were away when the notice arrived in the mail or whatever. Are you planning on taking any particular steps to find out how many of these remaining 35% will be picked up when the list is revised in anticipation of the municipal elections?

Mr. Côté: I must emphasize that we are talking here of 35% of those persons who reached the age of 18 and are entitled to vote on the 5th. Please do not think that there are 35% of people...

Mr. Bélanger: No, no, 35% of the 7,000 or so.

Mr. Côté: And I would remind you of what we did to try to reach them through adds and through the boards of revision. They had every possibility to register.

If you compare their number to that of voters whose names appear on the provincial list, if you try to make some analogy, we estimate that 92 to 93% of our adult population are on the provincial list. That leaves 7%. That may seem high.

On the one hand, one must realize that we are talking here of 35 % at the municipal level, and there is less interest in municipal elections than in, say, a referendum or provincial elections. I do not mean to say that they are not interested, but one's interest in going to vote for a municipal councillor is not necessarily a given.

We nevertheless have concerns about the 7 per cent of the adult population that are not registered. And this is why everytime there is an election we spend considerable amounts of money. We are even criticized for having ad and information campaigns that some people consider to be too elaborate, but our main aim is to reach as many people as possible. We even spread our message in several languages. We have a flyer that uses 19 languages so as to reach all categories of citizens, because all Canadian citizens who are eligible to vote have the right to have their name included in the provincial electoral list. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind in that regard.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Insofar as Canadian citizenship is concerned as the factor in question, in your experience, is it the Department of Citizenship that is the best source for updating the list and verifying the status of this factor?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: For all new citizens, there is no doubt that it would be the Department of Citizenship.

.1155

There is no other organization that would have this information. You would not find it anywhere else. Our approach, therefore, is to obtain from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration the list of all new Canadian citizens in order to write them and ask them if they want their name added to the list. There is no doubt in my mind that the best source of information in this regard is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: It's my understanding that in Manitoba, to vote at the school board level for school trustees, one does not have to be a Canadian citizen, merely a Canadian resident in the area. Does a similar situation occur in Quebec?

Mr. Côté: No, you must be a Canadian citizen for the three levels: school board, municipal level, and provincial level.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Again, in Manitoba, if you take a federal riding, it's never the exact sum of provincial ridings, whatever number they are. Do you see merit in reconciling the boundaries of provincial constituencies such that when you take a sum, whether it be three or four or five, it will be such that the exact boundaries will translate to one federal boundary?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: It is a decision that comes under the authority of each province. Each province, be it Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, etc., may decide that it wants to have the same boundaries as for federal ridings and, consequently, polling divisions. That makes things easier. But the decision rests first and foremost with the various provincial legislatures. For example, in Quebec, there are 125 ridings, but at the federal level there are only 75. Is there any real problem in taking Quebec's list and in using it for the 75 federal ridings there are in Quebec?

I believe it is a technical problem that would be quite easy to resolve. What would be required is that Elections Canada send us the list of polling division boundaries, that we take the names, addresses, etc. of voters and that we place them in the right polling divisions, or that we supply the list to them and they take care of it. But I see no major technical problem there, because the total number of voters in Quebec would be the same.

What has to be done is the proper distribution of these voters in the right ridings, in the right polling divisions. It is a technical problem that is quite an easy one to resolve. Why do I say that? Because we are trying to do something about it. We have the same problem with municipalities. We must supply the municipal list using the municipal boundaries, that are not always the same as at the provincial level.

We must not go beyond the boundaries of the municipalities. Some municipalities have municipal districts and others do not. So this is a very real problem we are faced with here. In future, we will even be obligated, whenever there are municipal by-elections or referendums covering part of a municipality's territory, to supply a very precise voters' list that matches exactly the territory to be covered.

We are currently working on a way of going about this and of communicating with municipalities. If you push the analogy further, it is the same thing for federal ridings and federal polling divisions.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: I am pleased you see little technical problem in the resolution of that issue.

My last question relates to your earlier statement as an officer of the Quebec National Assembly. As a consequence of that, just for my information and for the record, did you have to seek permission in law before you appeared before this committee, or that notwithstanding, did you seek permission from the Quebec National Assembly before you could appear before a House of Commons committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: No, I made no such formal request. I obviously did state that I had been invited to appear before the committee. No major objections were voiced concerning my appearing here as a witness to share with you the fruits of our experience.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): I hope the members will permit the chair one question.

.1200

[Translation]

I wish to assure our witness that the question that will follow will be technical and not at all political.

[English]

In your urging us to use as the base for our electoral registry the work that has already been done in Quebec - and I guess I'm going back to the 1993 election when Quebec decided not to use the previous electoral list from the referendum - I'm wondering what reasons you had at that time for deciding to do a new enumeration rather than using the one that had previously been done. I ask this simply because that's what you're urging us now to do, and I'm wondering what reasons you had so that we might also take those into consideration.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: The problem as far as the second operation was concerned is that we did not have at our disposal the necessary computer-based tools to use the first list. The software is however now in place.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Could you be a little more precise about what kinds of problems that would then have created?

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: As to the establishment of computerized permanent electoral lists, we will in future have in place the mechanism I alluded to earlier, namely the on-going updating. This is an operation that is done by computer. At the time, in 1992, we had nothing of the kind. We were not in a position to say let us take the 1992 list and use it to establish a computerized electoral list, because we were not authorized to do that. We were given those powers in Bill 40. What does Bill 40 say? It says that we must carry out a first enumeration, which has been done. We asked to have a longer timeframe so as to be able to computerize the list and have, by May, an up-to-date list that would be regularly updated thereafter, every month. In 1992 that possibility did not exist.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Do you feel then that the quality of the electoral lists used in the other provinces was at a lower level than the quality of the list used in Quebec for the 1993 election?

M. Côté: I didn't get the...

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): The other provinces did use the referendum list and had an enriched revision process to make sure people were added to the list. Quebec didn't do that; it held a new enumeration.

Did you feel that the quality of your voters list for the 1993 federal election was better than the quality of lists used for the 1993 election elsewhere in Canada?

Mr. Côté: Are you referring to the 1993 federal election?

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Yes.

Mr. Côté: Not the general election in Quebec but the referendum.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): No.

Mr. Côté: I suppose they could have used our provincial list for the 1993 election.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): No. What I'm saying is that for the 1993 election the other provinces used the 1992 referendum list and Quebec did not.

Mr. Côté: But the provincial election took place in 1994 in Quebec.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): No, for the 1993 federal election.

Mr. Côté: In my opinion they may have used it, but they chose to have an enumeration in the province.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Okay.

Mr. Harper.

.1205

[Translation]

Mr. Harper: Was the federal government's decision to not use Quebec's list for the last federal elections a decision of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer here or of your Office in Quebec?

Mr. Côté: For the federal elections?

Mr. Harper: Yes.

Mr. Côté: It was our decision. And if you ask the same question regarding the referendum, there too we could have used Quebec's list. These were government decisions taken at the time in order to have our own list and vice versa.

Mr. Harper: Would it have been possible for the federal government to use Quebec's list?

Mr. Côté: Yes, but in both cases you would have had the same problem with the computerization of the lists and their subsequent updating. We have come a long way since in resolving this problem.

The major problem with a permanent computerized electoral list, be it federal or provincial, is not the establishment of the first list, the complete list, the complementary list, the basic list. The problem is rather the on-going updating work, so as to not lose voters or have them simply disappear into thin air.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Mr. Langlois, briefly, and then Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: There are two jurisdictions involved: Quebec and Elections Canada. I see that Mr. Girard is in the room. He could perhaps tell us why, for the 1993 general elections, the federal government was unable to use the referendum lists established in Quebec. That information would I believe complete the responses that have been given by Mr. Côté.

Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada): The reason why it was not possible for Elections Canada to use the 1992 referendum lists for the 1993 federal election, is that that would have required amendments to the Act. The federal Act stipulates that a list that is not older than a year may be used, but it must be a federal list. That is the status quo and that was the case at the time. This is why it was not possible to use Quebec's list.

Obviously I would echo Mr. Côté's statements regarding the technical problems that would have been involved in transposing the list at that time.

Mr. Bélanger: Because the 1992 list had already...

Mr. Girard: The Election Act of Quebec, the Referendum Act of Quebec.

Mr. Bélanger: And the territories.

Mr. Girard: Yes.

Mr. Côté: In Quebec, it is established in accordance with Quebec legislation and in the other provinces it is done according to federal legislation.

I am very pleased that Mr. Girard participated, and all the more so because he spent several years in our shop. We continue to appreciate his professional capabilities.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): I believe that completes our questions for Mr. Côté. We will move on to other business,

[Translation]

and thank our witness for his excellent comments and answers to our questions. Thank you very much.

Mr. Côté: Thank you to the Chair and to the members of the committee.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): I wonder if we could ask anybody who is having conversations to leave the room, because the meeting is continuing.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Madam Chair, my request would be the following, and I thank you for having re-established the decorum that we had lost for a moment there.

.1210

Would it be possible for our researchers to prepare for us in time for our next meeting a summary of the technical and administrative issues brought up by Elections Canada and by the Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec, so that regarding the technical points Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Côté do not agree on, we might be better able to target our work when we meet so as to avoid rehashing a debate at large? That would be very helpful to us in the continuation of our work.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): I think that's an excellent suggestion.

We do not have a quorum to continue with the rest of our business unless somebody can get in touch with our whip's office and see if we can get one more person here. We can't table this report until -

Mr. Langlois: We'll have one.

[Translation]

We could study the proposal now in camera and then come back to it...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): I guess we can do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: In any event, we will not have the quorum to make a decision on the motion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Frankly, I'd rather the people reporting on it be here for the discussion and the presentation by the chair of the subcommittee.

Let's suspend for a couple of minutes until we get everybody here. We will then continue in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

Return to Committee Home Page

;