[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 20, 1997
.1136 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): I'm going to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Our clerk will be joining us at the table and our chair will be joining us shortly.
We have a committee report to adopt, which was agreed to unanimously by the committee on Tuesday, I think, and that is to deal with the question of Question Period and anticipating orders of the day. You have in front of you a one-page report to the House of Commons.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I move that the report be adopted.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): Seconded.
Motion agreed to
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Are there any other motions we need to adopt?
Perhaps we can go to item number two under ``other business''.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): When does this motion become effective, by tradition?
Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): The advice of the Clerk of the House on Tuesday was that if the committee tabled this report in the House, it would probably be sufficient for the Speaker at that point. He would not have to get a concurrence motion from the House.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Perhaps we can go now to ``other business'', which is on the back of your agenda under ``subcommittee on the business of supply''.
Mr. Mac Harb: I'll move number 2.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): It is that the committee authorize the tabling of the report from the subcommittee on the business of supply with the clerk of the committee on or before March 21, 1997.
It's ready to be tabled tomorrow. It's moved by Mr. Harb and seconded by Mr. Langlois.
Motion agreed to
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): What else can we do while we're waiting for Mr. Kingsley? Is there anything else we have to take care of?
Okay, we have the Chief Electoral Officer on the estimates.
Yes, Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb: I'd like to ask if it's possible to consider the notes from Mr. Kingsley as being deemed as read and included in the record so Mr. Kingsley does not have to go through the whole speech, but rather would give us a summary of his observations.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Are other members of the committee agreed? So we can go straight to questions, Mr. Kingsley.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Maybe he'd prefer to give his speech.
Mr. Mac Harb: I don't think so. He gave it to us. Obviously he wanted it in.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Yes.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Chief Electoral Officer of Canada): Excuse me, but I want to mention that in the French and the English text I wish to remove a bit of a sentence so that the official record will reflect it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Yes.
Mr. Kingsley: My text is mixed English and French, as you know, and therefore I can't tell you which page it is in English or in French.
.1140
Mr. Jack Frazer: Do you want one?
Mr. Kingsley: Please. Thank you, sir. Okay, it's page 14.
In the penultimate paragraph on that page, ``we will post riding-by-riding results'' is false. It should be ``at the next general election we will post riding-by-riding results on the Internet'', period - not ``as they come in on election night'', and the equivalent in the French.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Thank you.
Statement by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am very pleased to be with you again, to present the expenditure plan of my office for the coming fiscal year.
First, let me introduce my colleagues: Mrs. Janice Vézina, Director of Election Financing, and, Mr. Jacques Girard, Director of Legal Services and Registrar of Political Parties.
Today, with your permission, I would like to take 15 minutes to comment on the highlights of our part III for 1997-98, then we will welcome your questions.
My comments fall in three broad areas: elections Canada's accountability to Parliament; our performance in the last fiscal year for 1995-96; our major activities in the current 1996-97 year; and our key plans for 1997-98.
Election Canada's Accountability to Parliament
I'll begin with our accountability to Parliament. Members of the committee are aware that the agency has historically operated under two separate budgetary authorities, the administrative vote and the statutory authority. The administrative vote, or Vote 20, is the portion of our funding that is controlled by the Treasury Board, and that you are considering now in committee for reporting to the House. Essentially it provides for the salaries of a core group of our full-time employees. All our other expenditures fall under statutory authority. These include: the costs of services, supplies and additional staff necessary in preparing for and conducting general elections, by-elections and referendums; the costs of our various responsibilities under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Northwest Territories Elections Act; and, the costs of special projects, such as the register of electors.
For this current 1996-97 fiscal year, our administrative requirements of $3.2 million and our statutory forecast of $20.6 million total $23.8 million. Additional projected statutory expenditures of some $20.7 million are included in our supplementary estimates. They have been incorporated in our final projected total expenditures for this fiscal year. For the coming 1997-98 fiscal year, covered in the Part III before you, our planned statutory and voted expenditures are unchanged from this fiscal year, $23.8 million. Should a general election or referendum be held in the 1997-98 fiscal year, of course, the additional spending requirements will need to be covered by supplementary estimates. This would also apply to by-elections, conducting the forthcoming enumeration and building the register of electors.
Within Elections Canada we are improving our procedures for reporting our effectiveness to you and to Parliament. Obviously, it is not a straightforward matter to identify indicators of effectiveness for the unique kind of work we do. But as this Part III indicates, we are on the way to better reporting. You will see some of the results in our new performance report this fall which will primarily focus on our achievements in 1996-97. Meanwhile, I am happy to draw your attention to several accountability reports that Elections Canada has prepared for your information this year, listed in the appendix to our Part III.
Most are mandated by Parliament, such as my reports on various by-elections and on electoral boundary changes flowing from the 1996 representation order. Another, on the register of electors, is already familiar to members of the committee.
Elections Canada's Performance in 1995-96 and Activities in 1996-97
Now I would like to turn briefly to some highlights of Election Canada's performance in 1995-96 and 1996-97. Five items stand out in my mind: seven federal by-elections and a by-election as well as a general election in the Northwest Territories; the electoral geography project; electoral boundaries readjustment; electoral reform; and the register of electors.
Elections
The six federal by-elections in the last fiscal year and the single one of this current year all proceeded smoothly. A by-election differs from a general election only in scale. We took the opportunities of the by-elections to test some innovations and fine-tune many of the procedures that we will use for a general election. Similarly, the by-election and general election in the Northwest Territories in the last fiscal year were professionally handled by officials in the territories, with Elections Canada's direction, supervision and advice.
Electoral Geography Project
The electoral geography project, next, is an excellent example of the way we have been able to intermarry new information technology with the complex demands of being ready for an election or referendum at any moment. The project has involved creating a data base that will link every address in Canada to digitized electoral and polling-division maps. The result is a cost-effective and speedy solution to a formerly time-consuming, labour-intensive and expensive task.
Now in its final phase, the project has already generated computer-drawn maps at scales appropriate for political parties, candidates, and returning officers. This means we produced some 55,500 maps for polling divisions, to prepare for the April enumeration and a subsequent general election, and maps of all 301 electoral districts.
Redistribution
Moving to the subject of redistribution, you are aware that the process has now been completed under the representation order of 1996. As of this past January, on the dissolution of Parliament, a general election would be held for 301 electoral districts. There is a small caveat. If a federal referendum were to be held before the dissolution of Parliament, we would have to conduct it using the former 295-seat boundaries. This illustrates one of the small delights of our unpredictable lives, having to be ready for different events and scenarios. Perhaps Elections Canada's motto should be in utrumque paratus - prepared for either event.
The same proviso applies to a by-election held before the dissolution of Parliament. The practical effect is that we must must offer two streams of training or refresher courses to two lists of returning officers (75% of whom are new to the job), make sure that our staff are full prepared for the different situations and keep two sets of documentation current. Needless to say, all of these are in hand.
Electoral Reform
Electoral reform has occupied a good deal of our thoughts over the past two years, as I know it has yours. The bill amending the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act that Parliament passed in December is a landmark in contemporary Canadian electoral reform.
I wish to reiterate my thanks and appreciation for your support and keen interest in the legislation during my recent appearances before this committee. I would like, as well, to acknowledge my staff, who have worked many long hours over the past year to carry out your suggestions and instructions, and those of the House and Senate as embodied in the final legislation. Because the amending act received Royal Assent in December, just at the cut-off date for the Part III, perhaps I could bring you up-to-date on our progress since then.
As I have mentioned in the past, two elements flowing from the reforms-the final enumeration and the register of electors-are the keys to saving taxpayers some $138 million over the next six electoral events. Today I can report that we are on target. The final door-to-door enumeration will be held just three weeks from today, from the tenth to the sixteenth of April, in all provinces except Prince Edward Island and Alberta. As the legislation allows, Elections Canada has agreed with the election authorities from those two provinces to use the enumeration lists from their recent elections as the basis for ours.
Preparations are proceeding rapidly for the other provinces and territories. As I speak, returning officers and enumeration supervisors are receiving training, nominations for enumerators are being processed, supplies are being prepared and shipped across the country, forms and communications material are being printed and distributed, our public information inquiries unit is gearing up for the anticipated surge of telephone calls, and our computer people are working overtime to make sure that all our systems are ready at headquarters and for returning officers in the ridings. In other words, it's more or less business as usual at Elections Canada - as it has been since my appointment seven years ago.
The Register of Electors
The last item in my list of recent highlights is the register of electors. Here, too, I can report that we are in high gear. We have finished upgrading the system known as ECAPLE, the Elections Canada Automated Production of Lists of Electors, so that it will support the register. Work on the data base for the register itself is well advanced, and the technical and security arrangements for the register, both hardware and software, are being put in place. And we are continuing our fruitful discussions with the provinces and territories on sharing the register.
Elections Canada's Plans for 1997-98
In my final couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, I will confine my comments to three main points in our plans for the fiscal year about to begin. A more detailed elaboration of our plans appears in the second section of the Part III.
First, election readiness - or I should say event readiness, because we are always just as ready for a federal referendum as we are for an election. This, after all, is our main reason for existing as an agency of Parliament - to ensure a fair, open and accessible electoral process for every Canadian elector at home and abroad. I believe that my observations so far suggest that Elections Canada is now - and will be - fully prepared for whatever the future may bring. And, of course, for whenever the future may choose to manifest itself! We are actively continuing our other main jobs in innovative communications and voter education, in producing maps and other material to support the boundaries commissions, in honing our procedures for handling enforcement of the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, and in advising emerging democracies around the world on electoral processes.
Second, we are developing more effective ways of delivering our services, especially through astute use of information technology. For example, in 1997-98, we will complete our electoral geography project so that it can produce all required polling-division documents, and electoral-district and polling-division maps. A potential elector can then be geo-referenced (as we say) by address to a digital map, to a particular polling division, and to the correct electors list. This geo-referencing also opens up better possibilities for sharing electoral information with provincial, territorial and municipal electoral agencies. Canada, I should add, is a world leader in our use of this cost-effective technology.
Another example of our plan for decentralizing computer-based information directly to each returning office, starting with the enumeration and continuing with the next general election. The necessary equipment and software are already waiting in staging warehouses across the country, to which they will be returned after the enumeration to await an election call. We will also extend our reach to the public by increasing and improving the information on our site on the Internet's world wide web. For instance, at the next general election we will post riding-by-riding voting results on the Internet.
Third, the register of electors, both the final enumeration and our work in computerized electoral geography are the foundations of the register, which will be completed well within this coming 1997-98 fiscal year. By completed, I mean fully operational computer systems running a complete data base of Canadian electors, ready to produce electoral lists literally at a moment's notice. After that, it is a matter of keeping the register up to date, using the sources of information that I have described to you in my earlier appearances before the committee.
That concludes my overview. Now my colleagues and I welcome your questions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Questions?
Mr. Kingsley: Other than that, I just wish to thank Madam Dalphond-Guiral for her kind hospitality this morning while we were waiting outside. We are ready to proceed; we are ready to answer your questions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Questions for Mr. Kingsley?
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Ms Catterall, I'd like to raise a concern that was already mentioned last year by my friend and colleague from Joliette, Mr. Laurin, during your appearance on May 28 on the matter of local returning officers.
It seems, in our party at least, that several members are worried about certain order in council appointments that at first glance would appear questionable. I am one of these members, Mr. Kingsley, since the reappointment of Ms Marthe Pelletier of Collin Street in Montmagny.
Ms Pelletier already occupied this position in 1993. She is the person who first refused my nomination papers on the pretext that I was in her kitchen and that she was not authorized to sign such a paper in her kitchen. She practically threw me out of her house, declaring that she could take up to six days to open her office. Of course, she could do what she wanted in her own house.
Owing to the intervention of your office, she called me the following morning to apologize and to inform me that she was willing to receive my nomination papers, which did in fact meet requirements. That meant that I had to do another three hour's drive.
This is the same person who, when the election results were proclaimed, called me a snoop because I wanted to be present at the official recount of the sealed envelopes in her office. This is the same person who obviously authorized or tolerated telephones being made available in certain polling stations by the returning officer for the use of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada organization to call people and offer them a ride to come and vote. Quite clearly, these were targeted voters.
In the circumstances I have serious questions about the impartiality of this person and her appointment. I'd like to know whether you have any way of checking into Ms Pelletier's behaviour and that of persons in other constituencies if such acts are drawn to your attention.
Although Bill C-63 has resulted in many improvements, it completely failed to take into account the need for a major reform, namely the appointment of returning officers through competition under the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Kingsley: Madam Chair, if I may, let me first of all explain that there's nothing sinister in this leftward movement I am making. It is simply because the microphone isn't working.
As for the question that just been asked, the example given by Mr. Langlois demonstrate how my office deals with this type of question. When a difficulty, either real or perceived, is drawn to our attention, we intervene to clarify the matter for the benefit of the returning officer.
.1145
I'd also like to mention to the members of the committee that we have just completed a nine-day training session for each of the new returning officers; 75% of the returning officers, as I mentioned in my presentation, are newly appointed. In the training we provide, and particularly the training provided by the legal service, we emphasize very strongly the legal obligation for a returning officer to be impartial.
We use concrete examples as illustrations and we note that the failure to be impartial constitutes an offence under the Act. They are required to follow the Chief Electoral Officer's directives. We gave them very concrete examples during their training.
As I already mentioned, this does not prevent problems from arising. Whenever this is the case, my office along with that of Mr. Girard, is available to clarify matters as quickly as possible.
I refer to the recommendation included in the report tabled around February 29 1996 on the appointment of returning officers. I hope that we will be able to deal with this subject sometime in the near future along with the other recommendations included in the report so that they can be drawn to the attention of the committee and of Parliament.
Mr. François Langlois: Thank you. I'm sure it will be a concern of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament. I was going to point out you, Mr. Kingsley, that impartiality cannot be created through legislation. It is a human quality, discovered not by legislation but revealed perhaps more easily through public competitions to find out if the person does possess this necessary prerequisite.
Furthermore, as you mentioned in your meeting with the various party caucuses, the results of Elections Canada are now available on Internet and the electoral maps are computerized. We are completely up to date in this area but when it comes to the appointment of returning officers, we still apply rules that strike me as obsolete.
Mr. Kingsley: I recognize that you are making a valid point since the recommendations I tabled in Parliament do propose to change the appointment process in the way you suggested.
Mr. François Langlois: Mr. Kingsley, following the adoption of Bill C-63 this year, Elections Canada will carry out an enumeration from April 10 to 16. You will probably have processed the data by the end of April. At that time you will be in a position to certify that the list is ready. I don't know wether this has to be done through a proclamation in the Official Gazette. That means that an election can be called at any time after your proclamation saying that the process has been completed.
If the election takes place on June 2, 9 or 17, that is before the usual date of adjournment for St. John's Day, I don't see any problem. It seems to me that the databank you will have at the time will be all the more reliable and useful if the election takes place soon after. If the election were to take place at the end of the present Parliament's mandate, let's say in October 1998, how reliable would the data be? How would this reliability be preserved in the meantime?
For example, how would you be able to follow up in Quebec and several other provinces on the moves made after June 1st, deaths, new persons acquiring the right to vote in the months following June, if the election does not take place then?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Langlois, first of all there are agreements signed with provincial and federal authorities relating to databanks that we must obtain for updates. As we explained to the committee, these agreements are going well. I expect that 99% of them, with the exception of Manitoba, will be signed so that we can make the necessary updates and examine the format of such data.
.1150
We expect that computerized programs will be functional by the fall so that we can make use of these databanks for updating as of then. So if the election should take place in the spring of 1998, the list will have been updated based on such information. It's only if the election takes place this fall that we will not have been able to take into account all the people who have moved since it will not be completely functional. I clearly indicated that we could start our updating in the fall and the information would be functional for the entire network.
But in this case, we have to remember that there will be an interval of four to six months. For the 1993 general election, for all of Canada except Quebec we used voters' lists that were a year old. There were no major problems mentioned at the time. I don't see why our lists would not be good enough if an election were to be held in the fall of 97, the spring of 98 or even the fall of 1998.
Mr. François Langlois: The most delicate situation would be if the election were to take place at the end of August or during the first two weeks of September when the time lapse without an update would have been the longest.
Tell me how the review process of the lists will take place with Bill C-63?
Mr. Kingsley: Once we receive the data banks, we will match them in order to incorporate them in our programs. We will then establish the programs and start the updating of the lists as soon as we can.
As I explained to you, and you put your finger on the problem, if it isn't to early in the fall, we will have received information on people who have moved in the months of June and July. We will have to rely mainly on the process of targeted review in order to reach people at their new address or through advertising aimed at encouraging these people to contact the office of the returning officer to make the necessary rectifications as a result of their move. The validity of this system was demonstrated in 1993 throughout Canada except in Quebec where we did make house-to-house visits, as I already explained to the committee.
Mr. François Langlois: Madam Chair, I have one last question. Of course other questions might come to mind once I've heard my colleagues.
About two weeks ago I happened to bump into the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Côté, at the Sainte-Foy Airport. He asked me the following question and I really feel I should put it to you. Why the devil didn't you decide to use the Quebec computerized electoral list that will soon be available?
I realize that Bill C-63 does not authorize us to make use of it. Mr. Côté's question was concerned with the fact that the Quebec electoral list does not appear to be validated by Elections Canada. Do you have doubts on the reliability of the information used by Elections Quebec or the Quebec Chief Electoral officer? Is your reluctance in accepting it based solely of the fact that you were not involved in the process and you do not feel you can ratify it after the fact, is that the problem?
Mr. Kingsley: Let me answer all the points you raised. First of all we had no involvement in the process set underway by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec or the way in which it was handled by his office. We were not involved in that. We in Elections Canada communicated with all our provincial colleagues interested in the process, they were able to keep abreast of everything we were doing and obtain all the data they wished during the process. This was not the attitude of the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer. He was perfectly entitled to act in this way. That does not create any problem.
.1155
When I was asked for my recommendation for the wording of what could be used as a provincial electoral list, I was unable to recommend the British Columbia list nor was I able to recommend the list that will eventually be prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec since it is on April 30 that this list will be officially completed.
As I already explained to the committee, the transposition of the names of vote sections from the provincial level, from British Columbia and Quebec, to the federal level does raise a problem. We know that a computerized solution is possible but we also know, since we've studied the matter thoroughly with representatives of British Columbia, that a solution has not yet been found. So since we do not have the solution, I did not look forward with pleasure to the possibility of having to transpose all of this manually when it was eventually to end up in a computer file. That is the main reason why I was unable to recommend either the British Columbia list or the Quebec one before even examining the reliability of these lists.
Lastly, with reference to reliability, we are in negotiations with Citizenship and Immigration Canada to obtain the names of new citizens as they become naturalized provided they check off the box authorizing the department to share this information with us.
We also attempted to help our colleague in Quebec, M. Côté, since he is grappling with a problem with a different dimension. He is trying to obtain the names of new Canadian citizens retroactively to the month of September 1995. That is only one of the dimensions of his problem.
As far as I know, since I met the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec in Quebec City less than two weeks ago, and it was not a chance encounter since I made the trip to see him, he did not yet have a solution to this aspect of the problem. I do not yet know how we are going to be able to deal with this matter of the consent of the new Canadian citizens, etc.
This is what we are trying to avoid with the permanent federal register that we are establishing. The retroactive inclusion of new Canadians, changes of address, citizens reaching the age of 18, all these matters give rise to serious problems or at least difficult ones. They are not unsurmountable but I prefer to face our present situation where we must build a system based on existing data banks and make updates to a system that is already set up rather than reconstructing a retroactive file. This is one of the difficulties we have avoided by proceeding the way we have done at the federal level.
I don't know wether this answers your question satisfactorily but it's the best answer I can give you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): I'm going to pass now to Mr. Pagtakhan, having allowed Monsieur Langlois much more than his usual time.
It's now just about noon. I ask the committee to give some thought, while Dr. Pagtakhan is beginning his questioning, as to whether we think we will complete our work with Mr. Kingsley today or will want him back after the Easter break.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): We can complete it today, as far as I'm concerned.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Okay.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kingsley, in part III of the expenditure plan, page 28, it was indicated that you were preparing a study on voter opinion and behaviour during the next general election. Could you give us an update on this proposed study? Are they proceeding with it?
Mr. Kingsley: I will attempt to answer your question, Dr. Pagtakhan. If my colleagues wish to add anything, they're free to do so, as they always are when they accompany me. I'm sure you've all recognized Maître Girard, as well as Mrs. Vézina from my office.
.1200
The study itself is not one that Elections Canada runs or undertakes. What we do is latch onto the massive study of electoral behaviour that is run by Professor Nevitte, which is basically a study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and produces the authoritative report on the election.
We're funding a small part of that to the expected tune of approximately $50,000 in order to ask questions about non-participation and other aspects, such as whether they found this particular aspect of the advertising sufficient, and so on, in order to help guide us to plan the next event in a more meaningful way, taking into account the factors that were brought forward.
We are participating in submitting a number of questions. It's not the only aspect, but we're interested particularly in non-voters, that 25% to 28% of Canadians who do not vote. We want to find out if it's something we're not doing right at Elections Canada in not reaching out to them.
An hon. member: It couldn't be us, could it?
Mr. Kingsley: I don't intend to find that out, but if I do, I'll let you know.
We also want to find out whether new Canadians are over-represented in this segment, what illiteracy has got to do with the significance of the problem, and how it ties into aboriginal non-participation. We're trying to find out who doesn't vote in Canadian elections. From the first time I appeared before this committee, when I took the position seven years ago, I mentioned this was an area we wanted to pursue. We've been pursuing it and we want now to come down with the questions and ask the people who don't participate why it is they don't participate.
We may find out there's no difference with the general population. We thought you would be interested in this as well as us. If you are interested, we'll report back on our findings.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Do you want to go back to your question?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: No, it's between me and the chair.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Has this information been provided to all our universities across Canada? Is it public information after it's completed? I think that's very good quality stuff.
Mr. Jacques Girard (Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Actually, it's a very important survey. I think the sample population is more than 2,000 people who are going to be questioned three times during the whole process. Yes, all the data will be available one year after the survey itself to all the academics across the country.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I support you on the study. My only interest is on a personal basis. Could there be an opportunity for us to see the survey questionnaire itself, just in case we may want to give an input of one or two potential questions?
For example, I am particularly interested because of the teaching in political science from every textbook today that I have read that only 5% of the basis for voting is on candidates. Yet in 1993 a poll survey was released by the Winnipeg Free Press indicating that it has increased the candidate as a basis for voting to 20%. I have no way of validating that in a good study, so that type of idea may be considered through you to those researchers.
Mr. Kingsley: If you don't mind, I would like to check with Professor Nevitte in terms of how they conduct this thing. If this is something that is not a problem, I can come back to the committee with our input into the whole process.
Mr. Ray Speaker: In terms of that question, would you be open to asking the current members of Parliament for input in terms of questions just via a letter from your office? I'm not sure very many members know what we know here as a committee and that this study will take place. Is there any kind of a question you may want to suggest be considered? We can't tell the researchers what to put in and what not to put in, but we could ask that some questions be considered.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to interrupt, but I think Dr. Pagtakhan was questioning on exactly this subject.
.1205
Mr. Ray Speaker: We've got an agreement to work together.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm flexible.
Mr. Kingsley: I will take this under advisement. As I've said, if it's something that is workable, we will do it, being a very open organization.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker had sort of captured the essence as well, and I will not repeat that.
On the second point on the same page, about the building of performance measurements into your operations, could you give us an update on that?
Ms Janice Vézina (Director, Elections Financing, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer): Basically what we're doing in this performance measurement is starting to develop a framework so that we can measure our results. This is also in line with the initiative of the Treasury Board Secretariat at the moment to improve reporting to Parliament. As part of that initiative and also as part of our accountability, which is somewhat unique in government, we're looking at ways we can report results back, rather than activities, and a list of things we've done. We want to report on results we've achieved.
We're looking at areas such as improving our costing of electoral events, things like the Nevitte study, which we're piggybacking on in terms of surveying voters to see how we're doing. Other surveys would also be conducted after the event to see how well we've achieved what we've set out to do, particularly in the area of communications programs.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: When do you anticipate the completion of that tool of measurement?
Ms Vézina: We would see this as an evolving project. It won't have a start date and end date. We'll be putting pieces in over time. My understanding is we will be preparing our performance report this fall. I'm not quite sure of the mechanics, but it would most likely come to this committee for review. That will be our first attempt to start to put in some measures.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: With respect to page 14 of the same expenditure plan about the changing face of the electorate, have there been any new initiatives undertaken in trying to address the challenge of the changing face of the electorate?
Mr. Kingsley: Quite frankly, it is what we're attempting to do through our communications strategy. This is very important at this time because we're mounting a specific program aimed at aboriginals, after having hired a native consultant group and held consultative circles, which is a familiar way of doing things with aboriginals. We're going to be gearing our message to them in a way that is more accessible to them.
We've retained the services of an agency with respect to the ethnic press or media because it also includes some television and radio.
With respect to illiteracy, we're trying to make our messages more and more simple so they're easy to read. We don't refer to fine print in our ads. We just convey the basic message, and those who are interested in more information can call the 1-800 number. That's essentially how we're proceeding at this stage.
I should mention as well, although you're already aware of this, all the polls are accessible except those I have to approve as Chief Electoral Officer as not being accessible. Those were 1.3% of the polls last time. Advance polls all have to be accessible for the disabled. This is how we're gearing up for the changes in the electorate.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have two last short questions. How much do you anticipate will be the cost involved in maintaining the updating of the permanent voters list? And are you able to ascertain the proportion of staff time devoted to giving attention to the Canadian international voters?
.1210
Mr. Kingsley: I'm going to ask Janice to refresh my memory. So I'll come back in respect to the costs of maintaining the register. If I'm not going to come back, I'll do it now.
The business plan we presented to you is what we're sticking to, and that's in the order of $5 million each fiscal year. This is what it will cost to maintain the register. It is possible that it will be slightly less than that, because we're finding out there are economies that are possible with some of our suppliers of data.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Did you say $5 million?
Mr. Kingsley: I said $5 million. That was what was in the business plan, so there's been no alteration in the business plan to that effect.
What was your second question, Dr. Pagtakhan?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It was about the amount of staff time devoted to the international.
Mr. Kingsley: In respect to the international, there are effectively one and a half staff members at Elections Canada who do this full time. One of them is the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Gould, who was quite rightly the recipient of the Order of Canada recently for his efforts that have brought renown to Canada as well. He has the staff time of the people under him to support him in his activities.
With respect of any other involvement on the part of Elections Canada, as I've indicated to this committee - it may have been even before you were a member, sir - the funding has to come from another agency before we send people out. On some occasions, if it is one of the staff members, I will accept that the salary is absorbed by Elections Canada, but the travel and other costs are paid by the agency, either CIDA, Foreign Affairs, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, or some other international organization, such as IFC, on which board I sit.
When they require the help of others - let's say returning officers, former returning officers who have served Canada well on the international front - that comes from the allocation of somebody else. There's nothing built into the budget at Elections Canada for that, because there really is no statutory basis for building it into our estimates.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ray Speaker: I have two questions. One is on page 35 and the other is on page 40. The one on page 35 is a follow-up to Mr. Langlois' questions in terms of returning officers. You mentioned that 95 out of the 301 went through the training program for the nine days. I just wanted to confirm that number.
The other part of this question is that as governments change, returning officers change, because it's part of the spoils of winning an election. In an earlier meeting you mentioned that perhaps we could do this in some non-partisan way. I'd be interested in how that might be achieved.
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the number of returning officers who have come into Ottawa for training, essentially it's 301 returning officers. During the fall we also mounted a two-day session in the regions, where our people went out to brief them on Bill C-63, on the last door-to-door enumeration and the changes in the Elections Act. It's a 36-day-minimum calendar and all that portends in terms of changes - the ability to register on advance poll day as well polling day, so they all knew what these changes meant. It was one day to each topic, in effect. So except for the Alberta returning officers and the four returning officers from P.E.I., there was no need to brief them on the last door-to-door enumeration because we're going to utilize those lists to constitute our lists.
Mr. Ray Speaker: We have 301 new...?
Mr. Kingsley: Of the returning officers going into the forthcoming events, 75% are new in their positions to Elections Canada.
Was there also another part to your question?
Mr. Ray Speaker: In terms of the future, and this is looking down the road.... What's behind the recommendation made in the February 29 report?
.1215
Mr. Kingsley: What we've envisaged is quite frankly based on what goes on with the Chief Electoral Officer in Quebec. The Chief Electoral Officer holds a competition and announces an opening in a riding. It's also important to note that the triggering point for someone losing the position would not be redistribution. It would not be that kind of an event that triggers it automatically, because I happen to think that makes us lose a lot of expertise. With the process becoming more and more complex and no longer being a manual system, it's more difficult and you need more and more people who have the expertise and who have done it. I wouldn't look to that as a triggering mechanism.
It should be a term appointment that a person would hold during satisfactory performance for up to seven years, or nine years, whatever it is that we would judge to be reasonable. But to staff the position one would hold a competition and let the best come forward and apply for the position. There would be a selection process run by people at Elections Canada and the most meritorious persons would be appointed. That is essentially what we're envisaging.
Mr. Ray Speaker: I have another question relative to the Referendum Act, which is on page 40. In terms of the coordination with provincial governments, some have referendum laws as well. Since 1992 has anything taken place to try to coordinate the referendum laws of the province, for example Quebec, with the referendum law of Canada? You have brought a lot of coordination between electoral responsibilities at the provincial level with the federal level in the last two years. Is there any effort in the other area?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of the referendums, the areas where we cooperate are essentially the same as in terms of elections; that is to say, the sharing of lists, the sharing of computerized cartographic services, and that's it. The only other area would be if there were different referendums being held at the same date. In that case there could be a possibility of cooperation, but it's very difficult to foresee that happening. People in different jurisdictions would have a view that if this jurisdiction is holding a referendum we're not going to hold it on a different topic on the same day.
There have not been the same kinds of discussions on the very topic of referendums other than on the basics of what is similar between an election and a referendum anyway. As I'm sure I've made everyone aware in the past, if you hold a referendum on its own that carries a price. It's approximately $140 million per event. But if you tag it on to a general election you're really talking about adding $10 million to your bill if there's only one question. So that makes it different. The economies are there at the federal level in terms of significant savings if one wants to move on that front.
Mr. Ray Speaker: This is my last question. Can a provincial referendum be piggybacked onto...? Let's say in the province of Alberta if we wanted to hold a referendum on a subject, could that go on the federal ballot? Does your legislation allow for that? Not in any other province?
Mr. Kingsley: At this time the answer would be no. If one were to seek that kind of cooperation, we would have to come back before you and sensitize you to that and get it changed to the Canada Elections Act. Simply, it could not be done at this time. You could not hold a referendum at the federal level and a general election at the federal level at the same time. You cannot do that under the present law. As a matter of fact the Referendum Act pre-empts that very thing from happening. Our own backyard would have to be cleaned in respect to that.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): We have Ms Parrish and Mr. Frazer for questions, but I have to let the committee know that I have to leave fairly soon, which means we may not complete our business and the vote on Mr. Kingsley's estimates today. I'm in your hands as to how you want to proceed.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Mine's very brief.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): So is mine.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Catterall): Mr. Frazer, you can use up the rest of Mr. Speaker's time and then we'll have Ms Parrish.
.1220
Mr. Jack Frazer: Mr. Kingsley, your updating the list from birth certificates, citizenship, driver's licences and so on is permissive, in that people are allowed to say whether you can share this information or not. There are a lot of people becoming concerned with big brother watching and so on. What do you do when somebody opts to say no, you cannot share this? Do you flag their file? How do you then update your list?
Mr. Kingsley: The two are separate questions, sir. In terms of sharing, if someone indicates to us that they do not want the information concerning them shared with another jurisdiction, we flag that on our own computer files. But it doesn't pre-empt us from updating their files from the other data sources we have, from the data sources we have for our own purposes. So that's the answer to the question.
Mr. Jack Frazer: It doesn't concern you when they say no, you can't share this information?
Mr. Kingsley: It would only be of concern if it became a massive movement and other jurisdictions could no longer benefit from the cost savings associated with the sharing of lists, because they would not be interested if they knew that 50% of the people had opted out of sharing. But I don't think it will reach those proportions; I think it will be a small number of people who will ask for that.
If it ever gets to be a problem, I'll be coming back to the committee to sensitize you to that.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): You have the floor, Mrs. Parrish.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much.
I'm still interested in the new Canadians getting on these lists. In Ontario, do you have the same process that if they choose not to check off the box, they don't automatically get on the list? Is it the same right across the country? You were referring to Quebec at the time.
Mr. Kingsley: The answer's the same. We're going to be getting the data about new Canadians directly from a federal source - that is, Citizenship and Immigration. We're working out right now the very form and its format on which new Canadian citizen applicants will fill in a box that says yes, I want the Chief Electoral Officer to obtain the data concerning me once I get my citizenship, or no, I don't want him or her to obtain that.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Do we still have the process we had in the last election where people can register at a polling station on that day if they have the proper documentation?
Mr. Kingsley: There are several safeguards in terms of that. Where a person says I do not wish to be included on the register automatically, number one is the moment the election is called, a card is sent out from the returning officer's office, and the publicity says if you didn't get a card you're not on the list; you can get revised on to the list through these various means and here's the telephone number that allows you to get in touch with somebody to do that immediately.
The ultimate fail-safe is that you can register on polling day, still. In an urban poll, you must provide satisfactory evidence of who you are and it must contain your name, your address and your signature. For a rural poll, it continues to be what it has always been; that is to say, the opportunity for you to utilize either that means to be registered or you can be vouched on. That is to say, somebody else who's on the list will attest to the fact that you are Mrs. Carolyn Parrish and that way you can get to vote. That's the only slight distinction between urban and rural.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have one further question. Did I understand correctly that it's going to be $5 million a year? You say we're going to save $138 million over six elections or six events. I heard a figure of $5 million a year to update before each election. Was that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: It's $5 million a year to maintain the register up to date.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If - and I'm not leaning one way or the other, because it's not my decision - we were to roll right into an election after you've completed this task in May, do you think there'd be an appreciable savings in not rehooking computers, rerenting facilities, rehooking up phones? Do you have any idea what sort of savings that would generate? Just so I can fight in caucus a little harder, give me the ammunition.
Mr. Kingsley: You didn't want to ask the question in caucus.
The answer is that there would be some savings, obviously, and you've put your finger right on them. In terms of numbers, we're looking at that, but it's several millions. I can easily guess it's several million dollars that is at play here.
.1225
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I may ask a question on that. Over the years, what has been the magnitude of complaints about returning officers? Do you keep statistics on that?
Mr. Kingsley: As a matter of fact, unwittingly we may, because every phone call that comes in to Elections Canada - during an event mainly - is logged onto our computer and the subject matter is there. I hope you're not going to ask me to verify everything we did at the last general election, because that would be quite a task, but perhaps it is something we can be looking at.
I think, Dr. Pagtakhan, it's not really just a matter of the complaints we receive about them, because I don't want to give the impression we're not confident about going into the next general election with the people we've received. The point I'm trying to make is really a very simple management one, because I'm basically just a manager. With a 75% turnover in the leaders at the district level of an election, it's a massive change. Training is okay, but it can only carry you so far. I think the whole process needs to be reviewed by you, by us, to come out with what I would consider to be a more acceptable solution.
It is a form of anachronism; this is how I've described it, and I'm not taking my distance from that. It is something that exists because it's been there a long time. I think the time has come.... There are a lot of other appointments in the electoral process whereby the party whose candidate came in first and the party whose candidate came in second make nominations for appointment. I stand behind those, because they gave us that check and balance that is so essential to the process, as well as the fact that the candidates can be present, and as well as the fact that the parties and party leaders have direct access to anybody at Elections Canada, including me. I think all of these things work.
The one little fly in the ointment, in my view, remains the appointment process for returning officers.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas, Lib.): I will just follow up on that briefly. Others have already touched on it. Mr. Kingsley, your remarks were that there is a 75% turnover. Is this unusually high?
Mr. Kingsley: I don't know, I wasn't there when the redistribution occurred the last time. I have not looked into it. All I'm commenting on is it's high in management terms.
Mr. Bob Kilger: I appreciate that. I know when I look at my own case, the person who was there in 1988 and 1993 resigned after the last election, in fact moved out of the riding. So obviously for that reason.... I was curious to see if in fact there was a pattern of some sort or other, but apparently that hasn't been established.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley: That's all.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you for your comments. I'm ready to receive the motion on our agenda relating to vote 20, that is the sum of $3.2 million, which has not yet been authorized. Vote 20 will be put to a vote.
Mr. Frazer, seconded by Mr. Kilger, moves
PRIVY COUNCIL
- Chief Electoral Officer
Vote 20 is adopted
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you. Do you have any other questions to raise? Mr. Kingsley, Mr. Girard, Ms Vézina, I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming here and for being so cooperative with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): The committee is adjourned to the call of the chair. Thank you. I wish you a Happy Easter and remind you not to eat too much chocolate.