Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 4 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 3:45 p.m. to examine the Chief Electoral Officer's Report for 2000 on the thirty-seventh general election.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Senators, I see a quorum. We are meeting today, according to our Order of Reference from the Senate, to consider the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the thirty-seventh general election. This was the first election held under the new Elections Act. When Bill C-2 was before this committee almost exactly a year ago today, Mr. Kingsley had this to say:

We made a presentation at the Advisory Committee of Political Parties about the concession of the list, about its accuracy at any one time. We went into detail in front of all the political parties. I did the same thing with the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I am ready to come back to this committee at any time, Madam Chair, to give you the same presentation so that I can address, in a much more intelligent way than I have been able to do this evening, all the questions put to me about the accuracy of the register.

We have taken Mr. Kingsley up on his very kind offer. He was kind enough to make special arrangements to come before us today.

In this last election, there were new rules on third-party advertising. It was also the first election to make full use of the national register of electors. Thus, the thirty-seventh general election was quite unique, in many respects.

We are here today to examine the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr. Kingsley, we are in your hands.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Madam Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before your committee, and for finding a quote with which I could still live.

I wish to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to present my report on the thirty-seventh general election and to respond to any questions the committee may have.

I am accompanied today by Patricia J. Hassard, Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Janice Vézina, Director of Election Financing, Rennie Molnar, Director of Register, Geography and Information Technology, Luc Dumont, Director of Operations and Holly McManus, legal counsel, sitting in for Diane Davidson, Director of Legal Services.

Almost exactly a year ago, on April 12, I appeared before you to discuss Bill C-2.

The House of Commons and the Senate later adopted Bill C-2, and it received Royal Assent on May 31. By September 1, I had completed the necessary preparations for the bringing into operation of the act, and published a notice to that effect in the Canada Gazette. It then came into force as the new Canada Elections Act.

As a result of the substantial changes this act introduced in the way elections are conducted, the thirty-seventh general election was very much a new beginning. In addition, this was the first general election that was not immediately preceded by a door-to-door enumeration - except for three-quarters of the population in Canada in 1993 when we did not do door-to-door enumeration as a result of the referendum. That will be explained later.

This different kind of election had an impact on all participants in the process: electors, candidates, political parties, third parties, and election officials - including some 166,000 field staff who were needed on election day. It required that all learn new approaches, new reflexes and new ways of doing things.

In a moment, we will look specifically at one aspect of the election where changes created special challenges - the National Register of Electors.

Since election day, we have focussed our attention on a comprehensive post-election evaluation. In particular, weconsulted with returning officers, political parties and candidates. Comments, questions and suggestions from the StandingCommittee on Procedure and House Affairs, from this committee and from all parliamentarians are vital to this process. We intend to take full advantage of lessons learned from our experience in this general election, and to share them with all the other participants. I can also report to you today that we have remained within our cost estimates for the thirty-seventh general election - some $200 million. That includes the estimates of the operating costs for the register, since its inception, and the reimbursement to candidates and political parties.

The report before us today covers the events leading up to the thirty-seventh general election, and it provides a full account of that election.

I will submit my recommendations separately to Parliament on suggested improvements to the legislation in a separate report, once a full evaluation of the election has been completed. I expect this report will be ready by the fall of this year.

Among the various changes for this election, the discontinu ance of generalized door-to-door enumeration in favour of the National Register of Electors had the largest impact on electors and all other participants. As a result, the revision of elector information on voter lists has become an even more important activity in the electoral process.

For the most part, the register met our expectations. However, we know that with experience, technological progress and the cooperation of our partners, we can aim for better performance in the future. From a cost perspective, our original business case for the register projected some $30 million in savings for each general election or referendum, after the costs of creating and maintaining the register are recovered. Our operating costs are falling within the estimates. Building the register cost less than one half of what we estimated, and Elections Canada expects to recover the initial investment in the register, along with the corresponding maintenance costs, at the 2000 federal election, rather than at the subsequent election as previously forecast.

Mr. Rennie Molnar will now talk to you about the register.

Mr. Rennie Molnar, Director of Register, Geography and Information Technology, Elections Canada: I will begin by providing some brief background on the register and how it works. I will then focus on three issues identified, based on our analysis to date: the quality of the register, registering youth, and addresses. I will then walk through the revision process during the election and compare actual revision rates to the projected rates and assess how effective registration was, based on our preliminary analysis. I will also present some areas that we have identified for potential improvements.

In 1992, the list was automated by the development of software deployed in each of the 295 returning offices. In 1993, a change in legislation allowed us to reuse the 1992 referendum list without enumeration. The list was revised instead of compiled in all of Canada except Quebec, where the 1992 referendum was run provincially. This was an important milestone because itdemonstrated that we could run an election successfully using a one-year old list combined with an enhanced revision process. This became our quality target for the register.

In March, 1995, the Chief Electoral Officer consulted the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Elections Canada's plans to study the feasibility of establishing a register. In 1996, the research was completed and concluded that a register could be kept up to date with administrative sources. The Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the House and Senate committees in the fall of 1996. In December, 1996, Bill C-63 was passed to establish a register through one final enumeration.

The enumeration was conducted in April, 1997, except in Prince Edward Island and Alberta, where lists were used from recent provincial enumerations. In June, 1997, the thirty-sixth general election was conducted using the enumeration list data, and the final list was used to form the register. In 1998, the software was implemented and the register was loaded with the final list from the thirty-sixth election.

Updating then began with administrative sources provided through agreements that had been negotiated with approximately 26 federal, provincial and territorial agencies.

In 1998, the register data was used by the City of Winnipeg for municipal elections, allowing them to avoid enumeration and save over $500,000. We are currently working with the city to prepare for the next election.

In 1999, data from the register was used in five by-elections and in two Ontario elections. The advisory committee to the National Register of Electors was also formed and had its first meeting in September, 1999. This committee brings together representatives of provincial and territorial data suppliers,including vital statistics and driver's licence, along with provincial chief electoral officers who maintain registers. We discussed relevant issues, such as data security and youth registration.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is currentlyrepresented by the clerk from the City of Toronto, who recently requested that we consider adding information to the register to make it more useful for municipalities.

The committee met and was briefed on the election in February of this year. This leads to the past year with three more by-elections and, finally, the thirty-seventh general election.

The next chart in the report shows how the register works. Along the top we have the inputs that we used to keep the register up to date. In the centre, we have the register database and the outputs are along the bottom. The register was founded on a database of some 20 million electors, with names, addresses, dates of birth and gender. Each year, 26 per cent of this information changes - 16 per cent of electors move; 2 per cent turn 18 years of age and must be added to the register; 1 per cent of electors die; and 1 per cent are new Canadians.

The register is updated quarterly from federal, provincial and territorial sources, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, provincial and territorial drivers and vital statistics files, and provinces with registers currently in British Columbia and Quebec.

For national sources, the Canada Elections Act requires us to obtain express consent prior to obtaining the data to update the register. For the 1999 tax year, 84 per cent of tax filers consented to providing that information to update the register by ticking a box on the front of the income tax form. We also write to potential electors who have recently turned 18, to confirm their citizenship and obtain their consent before adding to the register.

We also receive a small number of updates from the electors themselves. Once the register is updated, we produce a snapshot, or release, of the register that is used to produce a preliminary list of electors in place of the enumeration at the beginning of an election.

The list is updated through an enhanced revision process during the election, and the final list is used to update the register after the election. A copy of the register is provided on October 15 of each year to members of Parliament and political parties, as mandated in the Canada Elections Act.

Data from this release is also used to produce data for preliminary lists to partners in other jurisdictions. The final list resulting from these elections is used to update the register as well.

The next chart shows a register quality at various milestones from the thirty-sixth to the thirty-seventh general election. Quality is expressed as a percentage of electors on the list, shown in blue diamonds on the chart, and the percentage of those with the correct address shown as red squares.

Our target, as documented in our feasibility study, is to have97 per cent of electors on the list and 80 per cent at the correct address. These are shown as the blue and red dashed lines on the chart.

As 5 per cent of the electorate do not register even under enumeration, the target is reduced to reflect that. Therefore, the objective is to get 97 per cent of the 95 per cent of electors. The same coverage is achieved via enumeration.

Quality levels are calculated by comparing register updates made to demographic changes derived from Statistics Canada data. For example, annual mobility rates are compared to the number of address changes we make on the register during the same period.

In June of 1998, the political party advisory committee was informed that we had 98 per cent of electors on the register,83 per cent at the correct address, which was slightly above our target. You could trace that through until most recently inOctober 2000 prior to the election. In the statement of quality accompanying the annual list provided to parties and members of parliament we indicated that we had 94 per cent of electors on the register, and 83 per cent at the correct address. The same information was provided to briefings of party caucus and the staff of MPs and senators. Returning officers were provided with riding-specific indicators of quality along with expected revision rates at the start of the election and were instructed to brief candidates.

Overall, we have remained above our target in terms of electors at the correct address but slightly below for electors on the register, primarily due to the number of 18-year-olds not registered.

Finally, on the far right of the chart, the red triangle and blue circle for October 2000 indicates that we would get up to98 per cent of electors on the list, 87 per cent at correct address, if we could add electors, especially youth, from administrative sources, such as Canada Customs and Revenue. This 4 per cent increase represents some 800,000 electors, mostly between the ages of 18 and 21.

As I indicated earlier, some 2 per cent, or 380,000 electors, turn 18 each year and must be added to the register. We identify them from driver's licence files and revenue files and send them pre-printed forms to obtain their consent and confirm their citizenship. They only need to verify and correct the information, sign and return the form in the postage-paid envelope that we provide. We include a brochure explaining what the register is and why it is important to register.

Our first mail-out was conducted in the spring of 1999. Some provinces were excluded due to recent or upcoming elections, as we can add new people directly from a provincial list or register. Our response rate was 28 per cent. A second mail-out was conducted in the spring of 2000, in all provinces except Quebec, where 18-year-olds are added automatically as a result of the information we receive from the Director General of Elections of Quebec. Our response rate was 25 per cent.

For the election, the preliminary list had 30 per cent of electors who had turned 18 since the 1997 election. We sent reminder cards to some 400,000 18-year-olds who had not respond to our mail-outs. We also developed ads directed specifically at youth.

Given the low response rate to our mail-outs, in the summer of 2000 we contracted a firm to evaluate the program to date and to recommend enhancements. Focus groups were conducted in three centres across the country with 18-year-olds that had not responded to our mail-outs to determine why they did not respond and how to improve this response rate.

Reasons for not responding vary from being too busy to assuming they were already registered because we had sent them pre-printed forms. Recommendations to improve the rate include offering on-line registration and automatically adding 18-year- olds from administrate sources such as driver's licence filings and Canada Customs and Revenue.

I will return to the subject of youth later on in the presentation.

The third issue I would like to present relates to the management of addresses. An address-management program was initiated in 1998 to standardize addresses across Elections Canada with particular emphasis on the register.

The register software standardizes addresses from various administrative sources. However, some require special treatment to correct spelling and to ensure that we can locate them properly in an electoral district and polling division.

The register software has been improved significantly since the original implementation in 1998, but not all addresses have been standardized. We have developed special tools to perform this function, and a first pass was made at in the summer of 2000. Some 60,000 changes were made.

A second phase is proceeding, following restructuring of our database to handle alternate place and street names. This will allow us to recognize unofficial place names and link them to the proper municipality and to deal with alternate street names. Addresses returning from the election will be standardized and synchronized with our geography database as part of the process of updating the register.

I will now move to the recent election. A release of the register was produced in August 2000, after our major update using revenue data during the summer, in preparation for the provision of register data to members of Parliament and political parties on October 15, 2000. The same release was used for the preparation of preliminary lists of electors and in 301 electoral district databases deployed at the start of an election as part of our standard election-readiness program.

Immediately prior to the election, initiatives were undertaken to enhance the quality of the list, based on the availability of more recent data. However, changes to the preliminary lists or the electoral district databases cannot be currently made centrally. These updates were pre-printed on revision forms and provided to returning officers to enter as revisions at the beginning of the election. This was done in time for the mailing of the voter information cards so that no action was required on the part of the elector.

A file was received from the Director General of Elections of Quebec on October 15, 2000 representing changes sinceJuly 2000. This was matched to the register, and some 286,000 updates were provided to returning officers in Quebec.

A list was also received from Elections Alberta in mid-October based on their door-to-door confirmation process conducted during the summer. This file again was matched against the register and generated some 187 updates that were provided to returning officers.

Finally, a file containing some 10,000 records representing one year of deceaseds was received from Manitoba. This file was matched to the register and delete forms were sent to the returning officers, who removed the voter information cards for these electors and removed them from the list.

These initiatives enabled us to take advantage of recent data to improve the quality of the list. In future, we plan to have the capabilities of make these changes electronically.

Targeted revision is directed at areas of high mobility, new developments, and is designed to deal with areas where keeping up with the rate of change is particularly challenging, for example, student residences. During the second and third week of the election, a pair of revising agents visits each door and collects registration information, confirms registration information or leaves a mail-in package after two visits.

Returning officers use local knowledge to identify areas to target in a pre-writ assignment in the spring of 2000. This was done in consultation with parties and MPs.

During the election, over 500,000 addresses were targeted. This represents approximately 1 million electors, or about 5 per cent. The results indicate that in slightly more than one third of the cases we collected some registration information. Inapproximately one third of the cases, the information we had on the register was confirmed. In the remaining cases, contact could not be made so mail-in registration packages were left.

The voter information card provides important information on when and where to vote and how to contact the local returning office if revisions are required. It is addressed to the elector or occupant, to ensure it gets delivered to the address. We have special arrangements with Canada Post to not redirect this information and to ensure that the cards get delivered. Of the nearly 20 million cards, about 100,000, or some 0.5 per cent, were returned as undeliverable due primarily to addressing issues.

During the election, electors could contact a returning officer to be added to the list or to have information corrected, including changes of address. They could also register at advance polls or on polling day.

This next chart shows the cumulative number of registrations, adds and moves, during the election. The blue bars show the projections, and the red bars show the actuals. Projections are developed using a statistical model based on estimated register quality levels and factor in past participation rates. We had projected 2,455,000 registrations during the election. Actual revisions are tracked daily at Elections Canada headquarters during the election by statistics uploaded from returning officers automatically each evening over our wide area network.

Based on the 1,792,000 registrations recorded during the revision period and in advance polls, we projected660,000 registrants on polling day but planned for 1 million.

Changes in the law as a result of the passage of Bill C-2 allowed for polling day registration at all polls and provided more flexibility on which staff could register electors at the polls. All returning officers were authorized to increase the number of registration officers and to allow them to work more hours as required and to keep registration officers on standby. Some70 ridings were identified as likely having high volumes and were contacted one week in advance to ensure they were prepared.

Returning officers were instructed to consult with candidates regarding polling day registration plans. Some 1.8 million registrations were recorded prior to polling day, andapproximately 1 million electors registered on polling day.

This next slide provides a comparison of total projected versus actual registrations, along with the preliminary assessment based on our analysis to date. It is important to note that these results are based on statistics compiled during the election and that we need to analyze the data return from the election in depth before conclusions can be drawn.

That being said, overall registrations, adds and moves were about 387,000 higher than we had projected, primarily in Alberta and Quebec. This represents approximately 2 per cent of electors. Our removals were on target. Corrections were higher than expected, representing about 1.5 per cent of electors due to a higher rate of address corrections. We will need to analyze these changes further, but we have already begun work in this area with our address-management program.

The next chart gives a provincial and territorial breakdown of total projected versus actual registrations for the entire election. Projections are shown in blue and actuals in yellow. It shows that overall projections were generally on track except in Alberta and Quebec where we provided revision data to returning officers at the start of the election. Before we can draw any conclusions, we need to complete the comparison of the data that was sent to returning officers with the actual revisions that were made.

This last table compares the number of Canadian citizens of voting age to the number of electors on the final list for the last five elections. The first column shows the year of the election. The next column is an estimate of Canadian citizens of voting age based on census data. This is followed by the number of electors on the final list and the number of votes cast. Turnout is shown as a percentage of votes cast versus electors registered on the final list. The next two columns show estimates for deceased and duplicates on the final list, which are subtracted to derive the number of registered voters. The number of duplicates shown for the 1997 election represent the actual number identified and removed after the register was loaded. The other ones for duplicates are estimates.

The bolded column indicates that the number of citizens of voting age not registered has been consistently around 5 per cent even when an enumeration was conducted. This is when compared to estimates based on Statistics Canada census data.

Finally, I would like to present some areas for improvement that we have identified. We started the election with 30 per cent of youth on the register. We estimate that we have between55 per cent and 60 per cent on the final list as a result of the revisions during the election. As indicated earlier, we can improve the registration rate of youth to over 75 per cent if we could add electors from administrative sources, such as Canada Customs and Revenue. We can also improve the quality of the register by working with our data suppliers to improve the timeliness of the updates we receive and to improve our ability to process them faster. Our election preparation time can be reduced if we can provide register data to returning officers electronically at the start of the election.

We have recently signed a contract with Canada Post Corporation to use their national change-of-address data to further improve the quality of the register and our addresses. We will continue to develop the address-management program, including the consideration of new data sources aimed strictly atmaintaining addresses.

Regular reviews by returning officers will provide valuable assistance in ensuring that address and geography issues are identified and resolved on an ongoing basis.

By connecting our headquarters and field registration systems, we will enable returning office staff to move an elector from one riding to another. We will continue to simplify and enhance the revision process. Given the high level of Internet penetration, especially with youth, a secure on-line system would provide yet another means for electors to verify if they are registered and, perhaps, update their information.

Finally, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues to share register information, especially as more of them move to permanent lists.

Mr. Kingsley: Madam Chair, I will continue with my remarks, if I may. Questions may be raised of Rennie, or any of the others, once I have concluded.

I would like to add that the Advisory Committee of Political Parties, which I chair, has met regularly since its creation in 1998. It has already made its observations on the register and the voters lists at the thirty-seventh general election. This helped us identify some key technical issues, which Rennie has highlighted. We are confident that the necessary improvements can and will be made.

All participants learned valuable lessons, including the need to improve the quality of lists in the future, as well as the need to gear up for the important number of revisions required to update the lists.

We are already working on a number of measures, and Rennie has mentioned a number of them. One of them is an agreement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency whereby tax filers would have the option to authorize their addition to the register when filing their income tax returns. At present, we can only obtain authorization to update the addresses of tax filers who are already registered. This change alone, with which the Privacy Commissioner's staff has agreed in principle, as well as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency I might add, would add an estimated 275,000 electors a year to the register, 225,000 of them being young people. This would be the 4 per cent improvement to the lists that Rennie was talking about.

We have received information on the income tax take-up rate for there year. Everything indicates that it will be 1 per cent better than the previous year, and that was a couple of percentage points better than the previous year. This is a clear indication that people are beginning to twig to the idea of the register and the importance of sharing the information. With the ability to add the names, this will become an invaluable source of information.

We have already resumed as well updating our REVISE software so that the names of all voters who move during the election itself will be removed from their former list, or address, as opposed to only those who move within the same riding.

[Translation]

In addition to the register, there were several other significant changes for this election. The nomination process for candidates was changed. For the first time, returning officers had to verify that each candidate's nomination papers carried the required number of signatures and that these were signatures of electors from the electoral district in which the candidate was running. Returning officers had 48 hours to do so, and we sent them instructions on how to proceed. In all, four candidates' nomina tion papers were rejected because they did not have a sufficient number of valid signatures. I intend to address this subject in my recommendations.

Election advertising by individuals or groups other than candidates and political parties or their riding associations - the Act calls them "third parties" - was subject to spending limits. In addition, third parties that spent more than $500 in election advertising had to register with my office. The provisions on third parties were challenged in court shortly after the new Canada Elections Act came into force. While the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has yet to render its decision on the merits of the case, it granted an injunction at the start of the election period which suspended the enforcement of third party spending limits temporarily.

All other provisions remained in force, notably the requirement to register, to identify themselves in their election advertising, to appoint a financial agent, to avoid using anonymous or foreign donations for their election advertising, and after the election, to report on election advertising expenditures as well as on contributions received for election advertising. The injunction was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal but was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 10. Consequently, the spending limits did apply for the last part of the election period.

There were also new provisions on the election advertising blackout period which is now limited to election day until the close of polls and applies equally to candidates, political parties and third parties. The same election day blackout also applies to the publication of new election survey results. For the first time, there were rules requiring the disclosure of information to the public on the methodology of election surveys. This allowed voters to assess for themselves the accuracy and significance of survey results.

When Parliament considered the new Canada Elections Act, there was a need identified for greater flexibility and discretion in enforcing the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Canada Elections was given new powers to seek injunctions to stop or prevent the possible commission of an offence under the Canada Elections Act during an election period. The Commissioner's new powers also included enforcing the Act by way of compliance agreements.

Finally, the new election financing provisions mean that political parties, candidates and third parties are subject to more detailed reporting requirements. In fact, March 27, four months after election day, was the deadline for candidates and third parties to file their reports. The political parties' election expenses reports are due next May 28 while the annual reports are due on July 3, 2001. The latter deal with contributions.

My statutory report on the 37th general election contains a full description of how the election unfolded, but there is one specific point which I would like to reiterate, and that concerns the late opening of a number of polling stations on election day.

Out of the 56,822 polling stations available to voters, some120 stations in 14 ridings did not open on schedule. Most of these opened within an hour, but in the riding of St. Paul's Ontario, several remained closed longer. In that riding, a different approach to the recruitment and training of poll workers contributed to the problem. We will take the necessary measures to prevent this unacceptable event from recurring in the future.

We are now completing our post-election evaluation, and participating in a new edition of the Canadian Election Study, as well as in a study on increasing the participation rate of young electors in federal elections.

Even before all the results come in, though, there are a number of points that will be part of our future plans. First and foremost, we will invest considerable effort in the register. In light of the growing complexity of their task, we will also develop closer contacts with returning officers between elections to ensure that our lists and electoral maps benefit from their local knowledge and experience on an ongoing basis. We have already provided returning officers with computer communications tools to that end.

We will continue to keep political parties informed and to consult them through the advisory committee of political parties. In my view, the establishment of this committee, which meets three or four times a year, has proven to be one of the most beneficial measures in improving the electoral process. Should your committee wish, I will provide you with the reports I will be sending to the House Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to brief you on progress achieved in improving our systems. In addition, I am always happy to meet with parliamentary caucuses to discuss all election-related matters of interest to them..

I appreciate the opportunity to present my report on Canada's 37th general election. My colleagues and I will gladly answer your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I go to the list of questioners,Mr. Kingsley, I would ask you to send us the reports that you will be send being to the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because there is a great deal of interest here in the electoral process.

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin: I am pleased to note the ongoing improvement in our system and to see that the process is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

One issue that concerned me when you appeared before the committee last year was the right to vote. For a while, judges did not have the right to vote. Neither did inmates. That situation has been rectified.

However, I note on page 42 that of the 23,016 Canadian inmates eligible to vote, 5,521 actually registered and 5,194 exercised their right. I am somewhat surprised by these figures. Out of 23,000 eligible inmates, only 5,000 registered to vote. Is there a problem of some kind? Above all, why is a distinction drawn between inmates serving sentences of less than two years and inmates serving longer sentences? What is the rationale behind this provision? I do not believe any distinctions are made in other categories. If all inmates were entitled to vote, would this pose some major problems? You extend the right to vote only to inmates serving less than two years. Why is that?

Mr. Kingsley: First of all, with respect to the criteria used to determine whether or not an inmate is entitled to vote, namely the two-year sentencing provision, this determination was made by Parliament and written into the Act. It was agreed that inmates serving sentences of two years or more would not have the right to vote. It has to do with the fact that such inmates are housed in federal penitentiaries, whereas other categories of inmates serve out their sentences in provincial institutions.

Is this decision constitutional? It is defensible, although there is currently a challenge before the courts.

Senator Beaudoin: Someone is challenging this provision?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, a certain Mr. Sauvé. I do not the current status of this court challenge.

Senator Beaudoin: That is interesting.

[English]

Ms Holly E. McManus, Legal Counsel, Elections Canada: Madam Chairman, there is a history of cases that went to different court levels. However, Sauvé is the main one, and many of these cases have been joined together. I can come back to you with specific details and references.

Senator Beaudoin: It is already before the courts, is it?

Ms McManus: This is a controversial section that has a history. I would have to refresh my memory to give you the details, but it remains before the courts.

Senator Beaudoin: Of course I agree with you, Mr. Kingsley, that Parliament itself has made a distinction of two years and over two years. Perhaps there is a bigger problem when it is in a penitentiary as opposed to an ordinary jail. I understand that.

However, to make a distinction without any valid reason seems to be against the principle of equality before the law.

[Translation]

Mr. Kingsley: In terms of running an election, whether in a correctional facility or federal penitentiary, we proceeded in this manner because, in the 1992 referendum, all of the country's inmates had the right to vote. It was not restricted.

Senator Beaudoin: In 1992?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. Every federal inmate who wanted to vote was able to do so. We did not encounter any problems. We worked with prison authorities, with the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies and forged some ties which remain to this date whenever a vote is taken in provincial correctionalfacilities. Therefore, the reason for this distinction cannot be anadministrative one.

Senator Beaudoin: Yet, you arranged it so that every inmate could vote in the referendum.

Mr. Kingsley: That is correct.

Senator Beaudoin: In other words, anyone detained in a correctional facility was entitled to vote.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, according to the legislation in force at the time as interpreted by the courts.

Senator Beaudoin: The last general election was the 37th since Confederation. Correct?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Beaudoin: And inmates housed in provincialcorrectional facilities were entitled to vote, but not those in federal penitentiaries.

Mr. Kingsley: Correct.

Senator Beaudoin: And why was that?

Mr. Kingsley: The legislation is clear on this point. Only inmates serving sentences of less than two years have the right to vote. I must apply the legislation as framed and interpreted by the courts. The legislation has not been interpreted differently. It has been appealed, but it has not yet been overturned.

Senator Beaudoin: Is the Sauvé case now before the lower court?

[English]

Ms McManus: Not at the moment. I am not sure where it is because there are several Sauvé cases that have gone forward. Every time the law is changed, they challenge it again. This is why it changes from one event to the next.

Senator Beaudoin: As legislators we may change the statute. It is our role and duty.

I understand that we are waiting for a decision in Sauvé, but we may take the initiative and suggest that it be extended to all prisoners.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: If we compare the figures for the 1984 and 2000 general elections, we observe an alarming decline in voter participation. I can understand your telling me that this has nothing to do with the way the Elections Act is administered, but perhaps it has something to do with the quality of the election issues. Considering your fairly broad powers to bring certain observations to the attention of Parliament, would you not agree that the state of our democracy is seriously threatened by the fact that voter participation declined by 14 per cent between the 1984 and 2000 general elections?

Mr. Kingsley: As far as the quality of democracy is concerned, I can only say that we observed certain facts. Following the election, I was quite fascinated by newspaper editors who pondered all of the possible reasons why voter participation was down - and I agree with you that the decline is alarming and indeed should give us cause for some concern.

Senator Nolin: Participation declined by 6 per cent in three short years.

Mr. Kingsley: There is reason to be concerned about the electoral process itself.

Senator Nolin: I do not think the process is to blame for the problem.

Mr. Kingsley: Even though I have no reason to think there is a problem, I plan to conduct a survey of eligible voters who did not exercise their right to vote. A sample group of approximately 1,500 people will be polled to find out what, if anything, prevented them from exercising their right to vote. With the help of statisticians, we will thoroughly examine this matter and I will report back to you and to the House of Commons.

Senator Nolin: I am anxious to see your findings to find out if in fact one of the reasons is the length of the election campaign. People are used to a 60-day election campaign, whereas last time, the campaign lasted only 36 days. Everyone is wondering about this decline in voter participation. Could it be that young Canadians are not interested in voting? Those who are not registered are not breaking down the doors at Elections Canada in their haste to register. Voter interest seems to fluctuate.

Mr. Kingsley: Only 25 per cent return the completed form. That really is an unsatisfactory figure. That is why we arranged with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to add names to the voter's list based on people's tax returns. This way, we will be able to add the names of an additional 225,000 young Canadians and 50,000 adults to the list every year. This will represent a4 per cent improvement and that is significant in itself.

Senator Nolin: Will this study be completed before you table your report on the 2000 election?

Mr. Kingsley: I will do everything I can to complete it, because I feel this is important.

Senator Nolin: I understand that you failed to mention in your notes -

[English]

The Chairman: Before you do that Senator Nolin, could I do a follow up on this one because it is something that greatly concerns me.

There is one question that you might ask on your survey. That question would be: If enumerators had knocked on your door before the election to remind you that there was an election, would you have been more likely to vote?

I wonder if a physical presence at their door, rather than just another envelope among the many that arrive at all our doors, would have be an incentive for them to get out to vote. That might be something for you to take into consideration with your survey.

Mr. Kingsley: It will be taken into consideration, Madam Chairman.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: You referred to the broad sample you will be using to conduct your survey. Will you be doing a qualitative assessment of the opinions expressed, or merely a quantitative one? Is this a straightforward survey, or will consultation groups be brought in to clearly identify the problem? Often, the question raised by the chair can be pinpointed by consultation groups rather than by merely answering questions. Obviously, that approach is more costly.

Mr. Kingsley: Any comments or advice received will certainly be taken into consideration. We plan to retain the services of experts in this area and we will release the minutes of proceedings of any meetings.

Senator Nolin: Will your next report contain any recommenda tions pertaining to the financing of riding associations?

Mr. Kingsley: I believe it will.

Senator Nolin: I will be reading your recommendations carefully and with a great deal of interest.

Mr. Kingsley: The report will contain a number of other recommendations as well.

[English]

Senator Moore: On sheet number 14, what do you mean by "duplicates?"

Mr. Molnar: It refers to electors whose information is recorded more than once on the register. For example, if I take the 1997 list, we know that we removed 229,000 duplicate entries after the 1997 election. Typically, something like that would happen because a person who is registered in one riding moves and we have not picked that transaction up. The person shows up and registers in another riding, is added to the list, and the connection is not made to remove them from the list in the former riding. The removal of duplicates is a process that we go through in Ottawa after we have all the data back.

The Chairman: I have several questions in regards to the removal of names from the list. In several of the ridings in which I was active during the election, in particular in buildings where there is a high turnover, there were three couples listed where one couple lived. The people who came in vote on election day would claim to live there and say that the others on the list had lived there previously. I would point out that the opportunities for electoral fraud were enormous. There must be some way of more accurately and more quickly removing names from the list. I had a woman come to me on election daily and tell me that her husband's name was on the list but that he had been dead for10 years.

Mr. Molnar: To your last point, the list was built as a result of an enumeration in 1997. If someone were on the list -

The Chairman: He was on then, too, and still not removed.

Mr. Molnar: We would have enumerated that person in 1997 and added him at that point.

In terms of deceased electors, we receive vital statistics files from all provinces. We use them to remove deceased electors. We go through a three-phase matching process, probabilisticmatching, with a final clerical review.

That being said, there will always be some time lags between when we receive the information and when we can move people from the list. We do end up, unfortunately, with some deceased electors on the list.

The Chairman: Multiple sets of tenants particular inapartments would need to be an ongoing removal because, as I say, the possibilities for fraud are absolutely enormous.

Mr. Kingsley: I want to facilitate the process for removal for people who have moved from an address. We will consider how the others could be removed when new people are added - perhaps by requiring a verification.

I am also thinking, to be straightforward with you, that we will need to consider ways of not only sharing the list, which we do now, but having input not only from returning officers but also from political parties and Members of Parliament with respect to any objection to names that were added and to duplicates, to see how we can come to grips with this on a cyclical basis.

Senator Moore: Mr. Molnar, you mentioned at the outset that you get information quarterly and update the register. At the last bullet on slide 15, it says that you would "implement regular reviews of register." What does that mean? Does that mean more regular than the quarterly?

Mr. Molnar: The quarterly refers to how often we receive updates from various data suppliers - for example, from driver's licence files - and apply the updates to the register. The review referenced on slide 15 is by the returning officers. We would provide the list to returning officers each year and they would review the list in the years between the election. They would then give us feedback, particularly on addresses and geography issues, based on their local knowledge.

Mr. Kingsley: It emphasizes the point that I just made about the possibility of not only sharing that list with political parties and members of Parliament but also obtaining their views on the accuracy of the list. We do that every October 15. We will consider doing that to see if there is a practical way of doing it.

Senator Moore: Is the list a public document?

Mr. Kingsley: No, it is not. It is protected by the privacy laws. There are specific provisions in the statute itself that are aimed at protecting the privacy of the information there.

Senator Moore: How would you distribute it to political parties and to members of Parliament? I assume you would include senators, as we are members of Parliament. How would you do that?

Mr. Kingsley: We do it now.

Senator Moore: Would we have to adhere to certain rules?

Mr. Kingsley: We do it now, senator. We send it to every party. We do it with every MP in the House of Commons, which is what the law authorizes us to do. If a senator wishes to obtain the list, he or she must obtain it from the political party with which he or she is associated.

The guidelines are issued with the list on the use of the list. The lists are seeded with information so that we can trace misuse of the list. They are seeded with information because this is what automation allows us to do.

Senator Nolin: Specifically on your answer, Mr. Molnar, to your sending the information to the returning officer yearly to seek their input, what kind of inquiry or procedure do the301 returning officers follow? Would they do that alone? Would their hire enumerators?

Perhaps you are still thinking that through, but are we taking about a major annual revisit of the list?

[Translation]

Mr. Kingsley: We have yet to decide how we will proceed. We are looking to take advantage of the expertise of returning officers by sharing the register's data every year. We have yet to determine how to go about doing this. To answer you any differently would be to mislead you.

Senator Nolin: The returning officers do not have any additional information, unless they kept a personal record of death, relocations and so forth. Again, I have to wonder how they can vouch for the quality of the register. I realize that you have not yet completed your work, but the task is nevertheless a daunting one. A returning officer will review the list on an annual basis and make some kind of value judgement.

Mr. Kingsley: Returning officers could play a very useful role in determining whether new neighbourhoods or apartment buildings have sprung up or whether certain individuals have moved and they can take steps to ensure that people are registered to vote at the proper location. Their job would be to stay informed and to notify us of any changes.

Senator Nolin: So, instead of doing this once every four years, it would be once a year?

Mr. Kingsley: In a number of ridings, this could happen once a year, while every two years would suffice in other cases, or one year before the projected election date. What we have yet to determine is the role that political parties could play in the process - and I intend to take this matter up with them - and what role the Members themselves could play. Their contribution will be nonetheless significant.

We found that the register should not be something that we use once every four years, because then, there is some element of surprise. Despite my best efforts, people are not sufficiently aware that with a permanent register, the key word is review.

Whereas in the past, three per cent of all of the names on the list were reviewed, now this number has increased almost fivefold. Our goal is to reduce these numbers. Extensive review implies a change in attitude and that I what I was alluding to. I would like to soften this impact, while ensuring that all participants in the process are familiar with the register and come in contact with it more often than once every three and a half or four years.

[English]

Senator Banks: You mentioned that you share the list with the political parties and with members of the House of Commons. Is there anyone else with whom you share the list?

Mr. Kingsley: I do not believe so, not on an annual basis. That would occur only if there were an agreement to exchange data, but not on a cyclical data under the statute.

Senator Banks: There is an agreement to exchange data with whom?

Mr. Kingsley: The Chief Electoral Officer of the Province of Ontario and the electoral authorities of Winnipeg are examples of that.

Senator Banks: Is there anyone other than electoral officers?

Mr. Kingsley: No, we can only share the data with electoral officials governed by a provincial statute.

Senator Moore: With respect to the possibility of 301 returning officers doing a review, how is that to be done? Are they to hire staff, or do you have staff ready to do that? I am considering the additional cost of adding staff. Are we regressing by doing it this way?

Mr. Kingsley: The primary motive for establishing the register was never financial. The primary motive was to respond to the Royal Commission that determined we would have to move toward a permanent register of electors in Canada. We are saving about $30 million net at every general election. I feel quite at ease in justifying the expenditure of an additional several million dollars to improve the quality of the register. We are not talking about adding permanent additional staff to help returning officers execute their tasks, including this work before an election, as we did last time. They did not hire additional staff; in fact, they did not even hire any staff. The returning officers themselves did the work. We are not thinking of changing that drastically.

Senator Moore: On the matter of savings, on the bottom of page 4 of your remarks, Mr. Kingsley, and at the top of page 5, you say:

Building the Register cost less than half of what we estimated, and Elections Canada expects to recover the initial investment in the Register along with the corresponding maintenance costs at the 2000 federal election -

What was the total estimated cost? Do you remember the figure?

Mr. Kingsley: I would ask Janice Vézina to respond to your question.

Ms Janice Vézina, Director of Election Financing, Elections Canada: The original cost for the development andimplementation of the register was $41.9 million. It costbetween $19 and $20 million ultimately.

Senator Moore: That is a substantial saving. However, I do not want you to waste that saving. I understand that you expect to recover the expenditure but you do not know yet whether you will as a result of the 2000 election. Would you know now what savings you might have, or is that still being calculated?

Ms Vézina: The cost of the election is still an estimate, but a very solid one. Right now, we are at about $197 million. Therefore, based on that figure, I would say that we have recovered the initial investment.

Senator Pearson: Is there a way to determine how many of the eligible 18-year-olds voted? I do not know how you are able to break down your statistics. Of course, people register by name and their date of birth.

Mr. Kingsley: We do not keep track of who voted, as such, electronically. It is not possible for us, therefore, to trace back and determine the participation rate of 18- to 24-year-olds. The only way that we can ascertain that figure is through polling.

All the polls that are done after an election indicate that15 per cent more people say that they voted than actually did vote. It is amazing. There are always 10 to 15 per cent more who say that. Thus, it is very difficult to correlate with respect to youth. We know, however, that on average approximately 50 per cent of them vote, not the participation rate of the other age groups beyond 24. As people age, they participate more and more in the electoral process.

Senator Pearson: Is that the case historically?

Mr. Kingsley: From what we can determine, yes it is. I do not know how far back that data is available because statistics were not kept that would allow us to do that. I would have to review previous reports of CEOS dating back 11 years, when I took over the job; I cannot remember that point being made.

Senator Pearson: I would be interested in that information because I know you do a number of educational programs in the schools. I would be interested in knowing if you have any way of evaluating your programs for their impact, as opposed to when you did not have any programs. I do not want to ask you to spend more money, but it would be interesting to know.

Mr. Kingsley: I remind the committee that the Chief Electoral Officer has statutory authority to spend money. The legislature had one purpose in mind, at least one that is evident - no one can ever be deprived of their right to vote because of a monetary concern. I want you to know that I share that with returning officers every time I speak to them at the training courses. If it is necessary to spend money, even between elections, to have people recognize their civic duty, as well as their right to vote, we incur that expense and will continue to do so.

Senator Pearson: I would be pleased if you would let me know should you be required to do that.

Mr. Kingsley: We will review it. When we reply to Senator Beaudoin's earlier question we will also reply to yours.

Senator Pearson: Did the Americans turn to you for any kind of advice?

The Chairman: I took great pleasure in telling Americans that on the day after the election in Canada we already knew the results of our election and that we could count.

Mr. Kingsley: In Life magazine's year in review in pictures, there was one article about how Canada handles its elections. It is relatively short but it is very well done.

Senator Moore: Is it accurate?

Mr. Kingsley: I suppose they did it as a counterpoint to their election. I cannot remember the name of the page, but I picked it up the other day through my son. I thought I would point it out to you that we do "smell good."

We received a call from American legislators and Mr. Dumont replied to some of their committee questions on-line. We received many requests for information from a number of senators and congressmen as well. The issue is not dead in the United States.

Senator Gustafson: I am somewhat upset with Senator Pearson because she upstaged me. I was going to ask whether you had any recommendations for chads and dimples.

The questions I want to ask may not even be pertinent to your department; however, I think they might be. I have run in four elections in rural ridings. I refer to the riding of Souris-Moose Mountain and, formerly, the Assiniboia riding. In the first election I ran in, there were 61 days after the writ was dropped until the date of the election. That was agonizingly long. However, the period is now quite a bit shorter. In a riding like that one in southern Saskatchewan, and other rural ridings, you need more time to meet the people of the riding. Of course, that depends on how you campaign. In the times I ran, if I had not campaigned for two years before I would not have won the riding because I was up against Ralph Goodale, who was a tough opponent.

I am wondering how we will deal with this in the future as our rural populations get smaller and the concentration of people in urban areas gets larger. I think we had 40,000 voters while some seats in Toronto have 120,000 voters. This has to be a difficult thing to handle. In some urban areas a candidate can walk around the constituency for which he is vying in a few hours. It is quite a different situation in a rural area. Is that under your department? I am sure you must have some observations about it.

Mr. Kingsley: Frankly, I do not have an answer to all the questions relating to some of the issues surrounding the electoral process. When the parliamentary committee asked me about the electoral period and whether or not a register should be implemented, I told them that I could reduce the electoral calendar to 36 days. I showed them how I could do it. However, it then became a question outside my ambit to determine if it would be 36, 37 or 38 days. What I was really saying is, "If you are going to make it less than 36, the Chief Electoral Officer is telling you he will have problems executing it." That was as far as I could go. If Parliament wants to make it 40, I will not object. When I took over as Chief Electoral Officer it was 50. If your first campaign was 61 days, senator, it is because someone called the election and said, "Polling day will be 60 days hence." At that time, 50 was the minimum that was required. The minimum is now 36, but it need not be the maximum. That is about as far as I can go in responding to your questions, sir. I do not know if it should be lengthened or not.

Senator Gustafson: Is that time written in stone?

Mr. Kingsley: The 36 minimum is in the law, but the fact it can be longer is also in the law. It cannot be shorter than 36 days.

Senator Gustafson: So the Prime Minister of the day in a federal election could say, "We are going to have a 40-day writ?"

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. As a matter of fact, when a by-election is called immediately after someone vacates a seat for whatever reason, for a certain number of days the writ period is a minimum of 47 days. For by-elections, it is still 47 days for a certain period of time. However, for a general election it is a minimum of 36, and the Prime Minister can make it 42 if he or she wishes.

Senator Gustafson: It obviously costs more money to campaign in a large rural riding than it does in an urban riding. I am not talking about communications, television, et cetera, because the costs for those would be close to the same. However, you do an awful lot of travel in such a large riding. There must be ridings where they have to use airplanes, et cetera. Do you think that the amounts of money are adequate or should there be changes?

Mr. Kingsley: I would ask Janice Vézina to explain how the differences are arrived at. If you wish, I will then express an opinion.

Ms Vézina: Currently, in the act, the travel that you would do in your riding is considered a personal expense. It is not subject to spending limits. For someone with a large riding, there is no limit. They are also reimbursable.

Senator Gustafson: Can someone else contribute to your personal travel expenses and still be within the guidelines?

Ms Vézina: Contributing to your campaign is fine. That is a contribution, if it is monetary. There is no impact on your expense limit. However, if it is a contribution of goods -

Senator Gustafson: It is not counted. Let us say your travel expense was an extra $1,000 for gas, et cetera. Would you be allowed that and be able to receive donations from your neighbour to do that?

Ms Vézina: Yes, if it goes toward the campaign. The contributions are not tagged as being for one purpose or another. The contributions just come into the campaign bank account. When you spend the money, it is recorded either as an election expense, a personal expense, or a non-election expense.

Senator Gustafson: I understand that point. However, the point I am making is this. The riding of Souris-Moose Mountain is a very large riding. As such, you will have more costs. There is no question about that. However, there is a $40,000 limit, or at least that is what it was approximately when I ran, with regard to expenditures. Are you telling me that your travel is outside that $40,000?

Ms Vézina: That is right. I do not know what the provisions were in the act at the time you are talking about, senator. Currently, if you are in a geographically large district, or if the population of your district is a certain amount below the national average, then your spending limits are adjusted. They are increased for those two reasons.

The Chairman: A riding like Nunavut has 38 different communities. The communities are not connected by road; you have to fly.

Ms Vézina: I believe that in last election the spending limit was somewhere around $60,000. The average spending limit last time was $63,000. Despite the low population, it was very close to the average spending limit. In addition, we know of some candidates in northern ridings who spent close to $60,000 in personal expenses, which includes the travel.

Senator Gustafson: To be fair to the urban centre that has 120,000 voters, there would be a requirement for an additional 60,000 fliers that you would not need in a rural area. Are exceptions made for that kind of thing?

Ms Vézina: The base calculation for election expense limit is based on the number of electors in the riding. That is your primary calculation. Someone with a large number of electors has a higher limit to start.

Senator Banks: You mentioned in passing, Mr. Kingsley, that you sometimes get information from tax forms. How? When? Where?

Mr. Kingsley: On the income tax form that every taxpayer fills out, there is a box wherein you indicate whether or not you agree to have your tombstone data - name, address and date of birth - shared with Elections Canada for the purposes of updating the list. Thus, if you have moved between one taxation year and the next and you have checked "yes," then we get that information.

Senator Banks: But only that information?

Mr. Kingsley: Only that information.

Senator Banks: How is it conveyed to you?

Mr. Kingsley: By tape.

Senator Banks: It is just that?

Mr. Kingsley: Only that information, and I have asked that nothing else be sent.

Senator Banks: I understand the formula by whichbroadcasting is allotted. I just want to ask in the meeting that he had, and I am sure that you have discussed it with the arbitrator subsequent to that, are the parties happy with that? If I were the Communist Party and had the capacity somehow to raise more money -

Senator Pearson: They were here before the committee.

Senator Banks: I know there is no perfect answer to this question, but are the parties generally, now, happy with this allocation and the formula and the means by which it is done?

Mr. Kingsley: You must remember that, effectively, there are two different allocations. One is for paid time. Only the parties with money can afford that. It must be remembered as well that for paid time the allocation is a minimum to which they are entitled. If they want to buy more and they have not exceeded their limit, then they can do that. That is the way the law is structured. What used to be a maximum is now effectively a minimum.

Senator Banks: That answers my question. Thank you.

Mr. Kingsley: I think it is important for senators to appreciate that the smaller parties, the ones that are not represented in the House of Commons, with which I deal at the advisory committee, are concerned about the allocation of free time.

Senator Banks: Which is on the basis of the same formula?

Mr. Kingsley: That is right. That is of concern because that is all they get as free time. The formula has a tendency to reduce significantly what those parties get. I intend to address that in my report to Parliament.

Senator Moore: I was interested in Mr. Kingsley's comments at the bottom of page 9 and at the top of page 10 of your presentation with respect to that St. Paul's, Ontario riding situation. You stated:

In that riding, a different approach to recruitment and training of poll workers contributed to the problem.

What was the different approach and who was responsible for it?

Mr. Kingsley: Effectively, the returning officer trained deputy returning officers and clerks but did not hand out the boxes with the necessary information until polling day.

Senator Moore: That material is provided by your office.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. The returning officer did not assign the deputy returning officers and the clerks to their specific polls until the morning of polling day.

It occurred in one riding out of 301.

Senator Moore: You further state:

We will take the necessary measures to prevent this unacceptable event from occurring in the future.

So what are we going to do, put in place some guidelines?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. We also have an election management system whereby we are fed information electronically about what is going on during the election. One of the questions we did not ask was this: Have you trained the returning officers and have you assigned them their specific poll? That issue is covered in the directives. We will now ask it and we will wait for an answer.

Senator Moore: That is the obvious way of handling it.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, it is.

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin: I have a question concerning the difference in the number of voters from one riding to the next. In the United States, the Supreme Court has often decreed the following: "One person, one vote." As of yet, the Supreme Court of Canada has not issued a similar edict. However, we are working on it.

Considerable disparities exist between certain rural and urban ridings. However, I am certain that you are doing your utmost to further minimize these disparities. Has any progress been made on this front? Is Canada in the same position as the United States or is it more difficult for us to achieve relative equality?

Mr. Kingsley: Clearly, it appears to be a more difficult task for us given the way in which our country is populated.

It should, however, be remembered that an independent commission, chaired by a justice, redraws electoral boundaries once every ten years. I want to remind senators at this time that this readjustment process is set to begin as early as next year.

Senator Beaudoin: For the next ten years?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. According to the rule, the population of each electoral district must l remain within 25 per cent more or25 per cent less of the electoral quota for the province. Ridings can be located side by side - and as I recall, I provided you with documentation in connection with Bill C-69 at the time - and population figures can differ by 40 per cent. Furthermore, the legislation states that commissions, for reasons that appear reasonable or valid to them, can depart from the rule. This explains why we have electoral districts like Labrador and others where the population is less than the allowable 25 per cent deviation from the rule. A provincial electoral commission may arrive at such a decision.

In other words, it is possible to depart from the concept of "one person, one vote." Moreover, the Supreme Court, in a Saskatchewan case, ruled that to all intents and purposes, a deviation from the rule of up to 25 per cent was constitutionally acceptable.

Senator Beaudoin: I remember that case. Madam Justice McLachlin held that Canada's electoral system was based on representation. However, this leaves me wanting more because as I see it, we should try to move toward the concept of "one person, one vote." That may not always be possible, given that Nunavut and the Yukon and Northwest Territories are sparsely populated, which makes implementation of this concept virtually impossible. The population of the territories is 25,000, whereas a single riding in Toronto may have a population of 120,000. Therefore, this is impossible. Nevertheless, Canadian courts are somewhat more lenient than their US counterparts when it comes to voter representation. Of course, it is up to the legislator to change the system, but are any efforts being made to reduce to the maximum extent possible the disparities between ridings?

Mr. Kingsley: I feel somewhat targeted by your reference to "in the field" because that is where I find myself. Once the commissions have been set up, in accordance with the process set out in the legislation, justices and other commission members will be called upon to attend a familiarization course at which time we will share our objectives with them. However, the final decisions rest with them, as commissions are responsible for defining electoral boundaries. They have the final say and merely receive advice from the Commons.

Senator Beaudoin: I understand, but is it possible to have a difference of 49,000 voters between electoral district A and electoral district B?

Mr. Kingsley: It is possible. As I recall, in Bill C-69, the government recommended a deviation of 15 per cent instead of25 per cent.

It was an attempt to rectify the situation through legislation. Obviously, people objected to other sections of the act.

Senator Beaudoin: I can understand why this would be totally impossible for a territory like Nunavut.

Mr. Kingsley: Nunavut is not a problem because according to the rule, Nunavut is a separate territory, like the Northwest Territories. There will no longer be a commission for the territories since each territory will be an electoral district.

Senator Beaudoin: It is a matter of one seat, one Member.

Mr. Kingsley: Each of the three territories has one seat and there is no longer a need to set up a commission. Commissions will only be struck in the ten provinces.

Senator Beaudoin: If we use Quebec as an example, the northern region of the province is sparsely populated. It must be very difficult to achieve some measure of equality between the different electoral districts.

Mr. Kingsley: It is not easy, but I plan to broach this subject with the commissions to see how they will approach matters. This problem arises in every province in which northern regions are not heavily populated. In some cases, this is true of southern regions of a province.

To heighten their awareness of the situation, I will certainly share with them all of the comments I received during the course of various presentations. Their job is a thankless one because inevitably, while the electoral boundaries readjustment process makes some people happy, it automatically leaves others unhappy.

Senator Beaudoin: Some states in the US are not as heavily populated as others.

Mr. Kingsley: I cannot argue with your contention that US courts have interpreted existing laws far more narrowly that Canadian courts. The courts in Canada determined that the law was the law and that Canadian realities had to be taken into account.

Senator Nolin: I was just about to mention one subject that is certain to be the focus of our attention in the years to come. We should rejoice over the fact that in Canada, all votes are tabulated.

Senator Beaudoin: Bravo!

Mr. Kingsley: And tabulated a second time.

Senator Nolin: You made a number of observations following the 1993 elections. When were the new electoral boundaries put in place?

Mr. Kingsley: They were put in place for the 1997 general election.

Senator Nolin: Between 1997 and 2000, did you observe any significant discrepancy, percentage wise, in representation by electoral district and by province?

Mr. Kingsley: Without conducting a special study, it was fairly apparent, based on the statistics I received concerning the voter register, that the disparity in certain ridings was enormous. In some ridings, the number of voters had increased by 50 per cent over the previous election.

[English]

Senator Gustafson: We seem to be in a period where more parties are appearing in our electoral system every year. We now have five parties in Canada that are represented in the House of Commons. That means that parties become elected with a smaller percentage of votes all the time. I do not know what that percentage is today; it may be 37 per cent approximately. We could be heading to a time when a party can rule with 30 per cent.

Senator Banks: Italy is one such country.

Senator Gustafson: I am a strong believer that you cannot beat the two-party system, but many people do not agree with me.

The Chairman: Especially in Saskatchewan.

Senator Gustafson: You said that; I did not.

Is there any answer to such a difficult situation? You have probably spent many hours thinking about these things, Mr. Kingsley, I am sure.

Mr. Kingsley: The answer might lie in different systems of voting because if Canadians want more parties then under a democracy that is what they will have. People will have to review whether the first-past-the-post system, the one we currently have, is the one that applies. Do we want run-off elections in a second round to eliminate that? Do we want preferential balloting to keep the one member-one riding system - in other words, whoever is knocked off the list the second choice of that person becomes the first choice until you reach 50 per cent plus one? There are many ways of tackling the issue.

On the other hand, if people say that they want first-past-the- post and with 30 per cent they get 60 per cent of the seats then that is what we will have.

The Chairman: I am concerned with the voters at both ends of the age scale. I know many young people checked that little box on their income tax form and assumed that they would then be on the voters list. Subsequently, when material arrived in the mail they did not answer it because they thought they were already on the list. I am concerned about people who did that, who had the interest in voting, but then were not added to the voters list.

Mr. Kingsley: I could address that, Madam Chair, by telling you that we are working out a deal right now to have them added. It was not possible to add before because there was no place where people could check their citizenship on the income tax form. Federal law, the Elections Canada Elections Act, stipulates that before a name can be added to the register there must be active consent and citizenship. The new question that we are helping to formulate with respect to being added to the list from the income tax system will ask the question about citizenship.

The Chairman: That will be one of the tombstone questions?

Mr. Kingsley: It will be automatic. If they say, yes, then it means that they are a Canadian citizen. They will attest to that by checking the box. That is something that we could not do before because the income tax form did not allow for that.

I want to remind the honourable senators that there was polling day registration available to every one.

The Chairman: Someone who thought his or her name was not on the list did not bother to go to the polls, which was one of the problems.

Why were 18-year-olds in Quebec were automatically added to the register? I understand that they were. That was not case in other provinces.

Mr. Kingsley: The data we get from Quebec is strictly from the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. The register that he manages adds them automatically. Perhaps Mr. Molnar can explain in more detail how that works.

However, by federal law, the Canada Elections Act, I am authorized to add the name of any elector who comes from an electoral source.

The Chairman: Is that municipal, as well?

Mr. Kingsley: I think that it could be municipal, after a municipal election.

The Chairman: I do not think that you are required to be a citizen to vote in a municipal election. You must be a landholder.

Mr. Kingsley: I will ask Mr. Molnar to answer that in more detail.

Mr. Molnar: I do not believe that citizenship is a requirement to vote municipally. I do not believe it is in any place of which I am aware.

In Quebec, 18-year-olds are identified through their health files when they are about 17-and-a-half. They are added to the Quebec list of voters. Letters are sent to let them know that they have been registered to vote and to give us a call if they do not want to be on the list. The number of people who actually call and ask to be taken off the list is nil, basically. When they turn 18, the switch gets set and they are on the list. That information is then provided to us, and then we can add them to the federal list for Quebec.

Senator Pearson: Is their citizenship included with their health information?

Mr. Molnar: That is correct.

Senator Banks: If I am a Lithuanian, a Chilean, or a Hong Kong immigrant and I arrive as a landed immigrant and quite properly file my income tax return but inadvertently I check off "Yes, I am a Canadian citizen," although I am not, will I end up on the register? How will you know that I am not a citizen?

Mr. Kingsley: We will not know.

Senator Banks: Does that mean that I could vote?

Mr. Kingsley: No, it does not. The law states that you must be a Canadian citizen to vote.

Senator Banks: If I am on the list and I turn up on polling day, what will happen?

Mr. Kingsley: It is against the law to vote if you are not a Canadian citizen. There is a reminder in every polling station on a banner that we post that you must be 18 years of age and a Canadian citizen in order to vote. If it is reported and investigated and it is determined that the person who did vote was not a Canadian citizen, then they will be prosecuted in the courts of law. It is not against the law to be on the register and not be a Canadian citizen. That is not against the law. I cannot add you unless you have attested that you are a Canadian citizen from a federal source; but it is not against the law not to be a Canadian citizen and to be on the register. That is an important distinction.

The Chairman: I move now to the other end of the age scale. You no longer allow proxy ballots.

Mr. Kingsley: No. That has been in the law for a number of elections. I do not remember administering an election with proxy voting.

The Chairman: We now have people living outside Canada for whom you have a mail-in ballot system, which I believe is working well. I am thinking of an increasingly older population, many of whom are no longer kept in hospitals. They are under palliative care situations or just living at home and cannot get out to vote. If I have my 90-year-old mother living with me, bedridden, which she certainly is not, and I know how she has voted in every single election since she turned 21, and not necessarily for my party, I cannot have an proxy to go vote for her, can I?

Mr. Kingsley: No. The answer is you cannot, not under the federal law as it is written at the present time.

The Chairman: Is this something that is being thought of in the future?

Mr. Kingsley: We have the special ballot right now. The person can apply for it, get it at home and vote by mail.

The Chairman: They can do that within the country?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

The Chairman: That is something I did not realize.

Mr. Kingsley: From the day the writ is issued. Some people do it even before the candidates are named.

Senator Nolin: You are saying that they ask for the ballot before, but they are not voting before, are they?

Mr. Kingsley: Some people are voting before the candidates are named.

The Chairman: With regard to the decreasing turnout on election day, have you studied other countries that have gone from a system of enumeration to a system of a permanent voters list, to see if there is a comparable decrease in turnout in those countries?

Mr. Kingsley: I do not think we have looked at that in detail. I was asked the same question by Ms Parrish in the House. I think I indicated to her that I would be replying to see what it is that we can ascertain. What I will do is include this information in my correspondence to the committee.

The Chairman: Do many countries have a permanent voters list?

Mr. Kingsley: I think many countries have such lists. As a matter of fact, I remember when I was explaining door-to-door in my earlier days in the position, it used to blow their minds. They would ask, "How can you do a country door-to-door inside such a short period of time?" That was the exception.

The Chairman: Could we get a list of countries about which you know?

Mr. Kingsley: I will provide that the to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Senator Nolin: On that point, to be fair to our system, of which I am very proud, in most of those countries you have to register at your police station as soon as you move in. You must carry your card.

The Chairman: So it is mandatory.

Senator Nolin: It is easy to have an electoral list in places like that. Even if you are a tourist they know where you live and for how long. I do not think it is the kind of example we want to set in Canada.

The Chairman: I thank you very much for attending here and answering our questions, Mr. Kingsley.

To say something positive about the permanent voters list, I know that political parties have found it very convenient to have it in their hands immediately when the writ is dropped. It has enabled political parties at any rate to contact the voters. Obviously, it has not resulted in a higher voter turnout.

I thank you again for appearing before us today. I am sure we will be hearing from you again shortly on Bill C-9.

Mr. Kingsley: I will be more than happy to come along and give you my views on that, Madam Chairman.

The Chairman: We return now to our agenda. Senators, we do have a draft budget to take a look at.

Over the past five or six years, the budget that this committee has traditionally submitted to Internal Economy has ranged plus or minus about $30,000. This year the steering committee asked our clerk to come in with something that was more realistic compared with what we actually spent. This is what you have before you. It is a little over one third of what we have asked for in previous years. I think it is a fairly realistic budget.

Would anyone care to move the adoption of this budget?

Senator Moore: I move adoption of the budget, Madam Chairman.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The budget is adopted. I will present it to the Internal Economy Committee on your behalf.

The committee adjourned.