Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence for February 25, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:15 p.m. to study Bill C-5, an Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Today, we are going to begin our study of Bill C-5.
[English]
We will hear today from the minister, the Honourable Jacques Saada, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform. With the minister today we have Mr. Stéphane Perrault, senior counsel from the Privy Council Office and, as well, Mr. Stephen Zaluski, senior counsel from the Privy Council Office.
Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today, minister. I understand you will begin with a brief presentation, and we will follow that with questions from senators.
[Translation]
The Honourable Jacques Saada, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-5, respecting the implementation of new electoral boundaries.
Despite its unassuming title and the fact that it is only three clauses long, this bill is of great significance to all Canadians. It is about providing them, with the least possible delay, a new electoral map that reflects demographic changes and the diversity of the different regions of Canada.
The principles and values behind this legislation have already been ably explained by the Honourable Senator Smith, who is sponsoring this bill. There are, however, a few points that I would like to underscore. First, there has been considerable discussion in both chambers as to what prompted this legislation, and I would like to speak to that directly.
On July 17, 2003, Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley wrote to the chair of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The CEO indicated in his letter, and in his subsequent testimony before the House committee considering Bill C-49, that it would be possible for Elections Canada to implement the new electoral boundaries for any election called on or after April 1, 2004.
The choice of April 1, 2004, as the operative date stipulated in Bill C-5 would ensure that if an election is called this spring or summer, it will be held under the new electoral boundaries.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I would like also to make it very clear that this initiative is far from merely a question of process or convenience. In fact, I believe Alfred North Whitehead put it best when he said that the art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.
We all agree that the stability of our parliamentary democracy is crucial. I would hope, however, that we also agree that it is essential to ensure that the House of Commons provide an accurate reflection of Canada's changing demographics.
Ideally, an electoral map should reflect the most recent census data. As such, it is crucial to update our electoral map in a timely fashion, without which the representativeness of the House of Commons and its democratic legitimacy would be at stake. This is why the Constitution provides for readjustment of electoral boundaries every 10 years following each decennial census. The machinery for doing this is the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
In 1964, Parliament decided that the drawing of electoral boundaries should be removed from parliamentarians and placed in the hands of an independent process. Hence, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was born.
The act is based on the creation of 10 independent Electoral Boundaries Commissions, one for each province. They are charged with the task of drawing up new electoral boundaries for the provinces. Unlike in many U.S. states, for instance, where the redistribution process is bipartisan, our system provides for strictly non-partisan commissions.
The commissions draw up proposals, hold public hearings and consider input from parliamentarians. The final determination, however, rests with the commissions. It is they who decide what the new federal boundaries for the provinces shall look like.
In doing so, however, they are guided by principles and criteria set out in the act. First and foremost, they are directed to proceed on the basis of achieving voter parity, ensuring that riding populations remain as close as reasonably possible to provincial averages.
However, drawing electoral boundaries is not a purely mathematical exercise; rather, it is also an art that demands balancing a variety of factors. Key among these is a concept of community of interest which looks to unique demographic and cultural characteristics.
Other factors in the act include historic patterns of electoral districts and the provision of manageable geographic areas for sparsely populated ridings. In other words, it is critical to ensure that all relevant factors are brought to bear on the commission's work.
As Madam Justice McLachlin stated in the leading Supreme Court judgment on this issue:
Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.
[Translation]
I would like to talk about the process for the readjustment of electoral boundaries that led to the introduction of this bill. The process has unfolded over many months. It started with the transmission of the 2001 census results in March 2002, and culminated with the new representation order on August 25, 2003. Canada's new electoral map represents the final product of a rigorous process that has successfully run its course. This bill in no way interferes with that process.
In fact, it simply ensures that this independent process is not unduly delayed. Under the new boundaries, the size of the House of Commons will increase from 301 to 308 members, reflecting Canada's growing population.
According to the 2001 census, Canada's population has grown significantly, particularly in three provinces. Applying the results of the 2001 census to the redistribution formula set out in the Constitution, Alberta and British Columbia are each entitled to two additional seats and Ontario to three new seats. As well, within provinces, adjustments are necessary to ensure that ridings are relatively equal and reflect shifts in population. Otherwise, we risk diluting the votes of some voters in favour of others.
All this to say that Canada's electoral map is very out of date and does not reflect today's demographic realities. In this context, the question is not why we should accelerate the implementation of the new boundaries, but rather on what basis we could justify further delay.
[English]
Some questions have been raised concerning permanency. Why not a permanent fix? Bill C-5 does not permanently shorten the one-year grace period in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act; in fact, it does not amend that act at all. It only applies to the 2003 representation order.
Why not a permanent fix? The reason is rather simple. We do not know at this point whether or what kind of a permanent reduction of the grace period is feasible. Looking at other jurisdictions, there is a wide spectrum of approaches to this particular issue. In a number of provinces, specific legislation is required for commission reports to be given force of law. In some of these cases, such as in British Columbia and Alberta, the law provides for the approval of recommendations by a resolution of the assembly followed by the introduction of legislation within the same session. In Quebec, where the distribution process is more similar to ours, boundaries drawn by the commission are published in the Canada Gazette and come into effect at the next dissolution, provided that this does not occur within three months of the publication.
Would three month be enough at the federal level where there is more than two and one half times the number of ridings than in Quebec, or should we apply a delay of six or eight months? The truth is we do not know. We do know that the Chief Electoral Officer has publicly stated that this time around the new boundaries can be ready for April 1. It is not, however, the last word and there exists several opportunities on the horizon for broader review of the electoral redistribution process.
[Translation]
In this regard, I wish to inform you that I invited the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, at the time Bill C- 3 was introduced, to undertake a broader study of the changes that might be made to the electoral process.
This could include questions relating to redistribution. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that he will table a report with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs outlining the changes he thinks should be made to the redistribution process. This report may provide an impetus for further thinking about possible reforms to the electoral redistribution process.
All of which is to say that there will be opportunities to shed further light on these issues, and that Bill C-5 should not prejudge this ongoing policy work.
However, we have a new electoral map that reflects Canada's current demographics and that was duly adopted. All that remains to be done is to implement it.
Honourable senators, there is much at stake. Some provinces are entitled to additional seats. All Canadians are entitled to an electoral map that reflects this country's changing face. That is the purpose of this bill. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me, and I am at your disposal to answer your questions.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Thank you for your presentation, which provides a very detailed history of the nature of this bill that we are called upon to amend. I get the feeling that you had a classical education because I detect a lot of Jesuitism in your presentation. You completely sidestep the issue raised in this amendment.
[English]
I know that no matter what I say here, how convincing I may be, the government has determined that this is a number one priority on its legislative list and so I will not change anyone's mind when it comes to the final vote. However, I do want to say, once again, how appalled I am, and so are many others, that for the second time your party, as the government, has attempted to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The first time was in 1994-95 when certain members of the Liberal caucus were satisfied with the electoral map determined on the 1981 census and convinced the house leader at that time, one of your predecessors, the Right Honourable Mr. Gray, to bring an amendment that would in effect not bring in redistribution in time for the 1997 election but to have it held based on the 1981 census rather than the 1991 census. That was suggested strictly for partisan purposes because there were members of the Liberal caucus in particular who had been elected in a seat for which they had fought for a long time and were disappointed to see that the changes might not allow re-election. It had nothing to do with the public good but only to do with Liberal fortunes. Fortunately, it was defeated in the Senate. It was tried twice and twice defeated.
Now we are back again, ironically, being asked to do the reverse: to reduce the time when the new electoral map takes effect in order to allow an election to take place any time after April 1. Again this is done strictly for partisan purposes. It was initiated through various discussions reported in the press by supporters of the present Prime Minister, picked up by the Chief Electoral Officer. A letter was then sent to the chairman of the appropriate committee of the House and copies were sent to Liberals on both sides. The Liberal Party engineered the whole thing through the government for an electoral advantage. This is my objection.
I am trying to come to a question, but I have to get this out of my system. I do not accept your argument that if the one-year period can be reduced to a shorter period, five, six or eight months, that it cannot be done on a permanent basis. The Lortie commission in the early 1990s recommended after exhaustive studies that the six-month period was perfectly adequate and could be implemented. This is not new. What is novel, however, is that the period is being reduced from the effective date of August 25 of this year to any time after April 1. This is being done strictly for the opportunity to have a spring election and to do so without offending Western Canada, more than it is now, by guaranteeing additional representation.
Had it not been for musings by supporters of the now Prime Minister and others, would we have this amendment before us today?
Mr. Saada: First of all, if you believe that my approach is good, thank you for the compliment, although I have not followed any classical studies.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I meant it as a compliment because I am a graduate of classics.
Mr. Saada: With all due respect, senator, you introduced your question by referring to an electoral advantage. Unless you know something that I do not know, I would not presume the outcome of elections. The fact that there are more ridings does not mean there are necessarily more ridings for the Liberals or the Conservatives. I would suppose that this is more in line with the political argument that you are making.
From your comment, especially with reference to the history of the file, I understand you have no problem with the principle of reducing the period. You oppose it, in this case, for political reasons, which I respect. However, if you oppose it for political reasons, I do not believe that I should be accused of being political in the process.
I have explained. I have no other argument but the truth of the facts as they stand. I have no other argument to tell you but simply the fact that as a democrat — we have no party with this name, so I can feel free to call myself a democrat — if we have the possibility of adjusting our electoral maps to the most recent possible demographic and historic ridings, why should we delay?
I would like to ask a question, if I may, in return. We propose the date of April 1. Would the honourable senator give me one reason why we should not?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: First, I do not think you should change the rules in the middle of the game. When the law was put into effect and the proclamation order was gazetted on August 25, it was known by all parties that they had one year to adjust, not just Elections Canada, but also political parties, organizers, fundraisers, independent candidates and everyone directly involved in the political process.
Second, my party, as a brand new party of national significance, has a major problem adjusting so that it can be in time for April 1. As well, all parties have to work under the new elections financing bill, Bill C-24, which is causing problems to all political parties. Everything has to be in place for April 1 or thereafter.
Had the rules been followed and everyone had known that the new map would not go into effect until August 25, then no one could complain that there was not enough time. I agree that an election could be called any time between now and then under the 301 ridings. That is my major objection.
The government at the time tried to change the rules in 1994 or 1995 while redistribution was taking place. They tried to put a halt to it.
If you had come to us and said that you could now do it in six months but will only make it effective for the next election, we would not be here today. You are putting the redistribution into effect now only to serve your party's purposes for this election only.
Mr. Lortie said years ago that six months is fine. Elections Canada has also said that.
The sponsor of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was Jack Pickersgill, the then Minister of Transport. He was not exactly the most non-partisan member of Parliament at the time. He made this statement regarding the bill. He said, "The government should have no more voice than any other part of the House because this was a business which was peculiarly the business of Parliament." However, you have made this amendment the business of government. That is what I object to.
Mr. Saada: You invoked an argument in the very first answer to my question to say why we should not do it.
Your first answer was a legal answer, but you are the one who used the term "public interest" in the introduction to the first question. I would beg to differ with you on this issue. I would not use a legal argument but rather rest on the public interest argument. The public interest is to have a representation adequate to the reality of today, not the one 10 or 13 or 15 years ago.
Regarding the public financing implications, this applies to all parties. There are dispositions in Bill C-24 that allow organization around the new lines as of January 1, 2004. I do not believe that it gives any advantage to any party in terms of consequences of having to publicly put out the records and give account at riding levels of all the monies coming in and going out. It is the same thing for everyone.
In your last point, you said that it is not Parliament's action but government's action. I would suggest that the government cannot act unless it has approval from Parliament. That is what we are seeking here.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Could all this not be resolved, Mr. Minister? I commend you for the document that you issued two or three weeks ago. I forget the title of it.
Mr. Saada: I remember.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I commend you for it and hope that it is just a first step. You applied last night in a two line whip.
What are your views on fixed terms? Is it worth looking into the notion of fixed year terms?
Mr. Saada: There are a number of issues that pertain to democratic reform that must be studied. We talk about various concepts such as proportional representation, the Senate issue, fixed term issues and so on. I honestly prefer to look at it the other way around. If I want to remain credible in my quest for public input into this process, I cannot have a position beforehand. I do not know the answer to this question, and I will not pretend to have one. I would rather listen to the Canadian public and get back to you.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I look forward to that.
Senator Smith: It is my understanding that when this bill went through the Commons last fall, that the parties supported it with the exception of the Bloc, which opposed it for different reasons according to the speeches in Hansard that I read. There were discussions with the House leaders. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer convenes meetings from time to time with official representatives of the various parties. They were all in accord with the April 1 date. Can you tell us any more about these consultations wherein the parties, with the exception of the Bloc in the House, were supportive?
Mr. Saada: You are correct on all grounds. The motivation in our committee was to come as close as possible and as quickly as possible to an appropriate representation of the demographics.
The argument by the Bloc at that time in the committee had to do with a very specific circumstance regarding the Lac-Saint-Jean representation. There are four ridings in that area. On the new map, they would have only three ridings.
They were hoping to maintain the ability to have four ridings for yet another four years. Discussions were not based on the principle or problems. They were based on the implementation and the direct political impact it would have had for that area.
You are correct about the rest. There was agreement from all the other parties on this matter.
Senator Beaudoin: I have a question about a fixed term. The reason we do not have regular or fixed-term elections —
The Chairman: Excuse me, senator. We got into the issue of a fixed term with Senator Lynch-Staunton's last question. However, it not an issue with respect to the bill the minister is here today to discuss, and we are limited in time. Unless it is tied into the bill, I would rather we save it for another venue or time. I do not want to cut you off.
Senator Beaudoin: My question is very simple. Given question of confidence, we can hardly have a fixed election. Obviously, if we say there would be an election every four years except if a confidence vote is lost, then fine. There is no other reason, is there?
Mr. Saada: I must repeat the same answer as I gave: I do not know. I am ready to wait and listen to the arguments made one way or the other. I do not want to presume the outcome.
There are a number of issues, such as this one, which would totally change the way our democracy exercises itself. In order for me to make intelligent comments, I would need to dig more deeply into that issue. I am not prepared to answer, but I respect your point of view.
Senator Beaudoin: Since it is not related to the bill, that is enough for today. However, I will come back to this question on another day.
Mr. Saada: I will be coming to you more prepared to answer those questions once the Canadian public has told me what it wants to have and how.
The Chairman: I believe as well, minister, that you indicated in your opening remarks that the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, at the time that Bill C-3 was introduced, was asked to undertake a broader study of possible changes.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you to go back to page 5 of your brief. The second bullet point in the middle, where you say:
In doing so, however, they are guided by principles and criteria set out in the act. First and foremost, they are directed to proceed on the basis of achieving voter parity, ensuring that riding populations remain as close as reasonable possible to provincial averages.
On the previous page, you relate that to the U.S. system.
I would feel more reassured if you had talked about effective voter parity instead of voter parity. The United States has a voter parity system. We do not. The decision you quoted from Justice McLachlin established that very clearly. It is a determining character of the Canadian system. A source of great frustration is that people generally think that we are under a voter parity system when, in fact, we are not. That is part of our federal government structure.
Should the Senate not be involved in the study of the electoral system? It is a predominant opinion in some quarters that the Senate, not being elected, has no direct interest in it. I have heard that opinion time and again. It is not true.
The representation of many provinces is based on the number of senators. A province's representation cannot go lower than their number of senators. The senators from a region have a direct interest, in terms of the number of MPs there are in the overall relationship with other regions, because we represent regions.
A senator from a region with a declining population or a stable population has a particular role to play in expressing the views of that region, which will be dominated in terms of population by other regions of Canada. The gist of the federal system is that the Senate rebalance that in terms of the legislative-making process.
By excluding the Senate in the review of the electoral act, I do not think we will achieve the best results. If the government thought that there was a major need to fix the electoral system, would it not have been better to reconvene a commission on the basis of the Lortie commission that was at that time composed of members from outside the political process and members with a parliamentary background? I remember, for instance, that Senator Lucie Pépin was there, and there were others, too. I do not remember all the names, but there was a balanced representation from parties. It would not be only the doctors curing the doctors. At least there would be a view of the general public interest in the system.
I strongly believe that Canada's electoral system is so directly linked to the structure of government that to evaluate it only on the basis of partisan interest or allegiance does not preserve the overall system. Would you be willing to reconsider the terms and mandate and how you will proceed in that regard? I feel it might not be the most preferred option to achieve the results you are looking for.
Mr. Saada: I see three elements in your intervention, senator. The first has to do with the wording of the parity issue and that there should be effective parity. I fully agree; I have no problem with that.
For instance, if I go by the criteria for the province of Quebec, we have an average of approximately 99,500 voters per riding, with 25 per cent flexibility, more or less. That is meant to do exactly that — to address the issue of effective parity. There is no problem. We are on the same wavelength exactly.
As to the role of the Senate in a potential review of the election act, I do not believe that the Senate should be excluded. My decision to refer to the committee was really based on the fact that I was addressing the House of Commons. I have never even hinted that I would not be interested in Senate debate and input.
Even though there are political parties in the House of Commons, there are also political parties in the Senate. There is a different approach and attitude toward things, but there is partisanship at some level in the Senate as well.
Your point is well taken. If the Senate wishes to undertake this kind of review and wants to offer some way of having the input necessary for the process undertaken at the House of Commons, I would be more than pleased to hear about it.
Senator Joyal: Why have you ruled out the idea of appointing a commission on the same ground as the Lortie commission?
Mr. Saada: Because of one special reason. Under democratic reform, one comment we have heard time and again by members of all political parties is that when we appointed commissions outside the realm of parliamentarians, we were in fact depriving parliamentarians from having input into certain fundamental things. For example, when the Romanow commission was created, many MPs said, "Why do we have to go outside when we could have done the job ourselves and sought expertise from outside in terms of input into our work? That would have made our job as members of Parliament more valuable." I did not want to fall into the same trap when we talk about the elections act.
Senator Joyal: The minister will remember very well — because I think he was in Parliament at that time — that when Parliament wanted to review salaries, it trusted the people who were, to a certain point, at a distance and possessed an objectivity so that the process did not seem to be "by parliamentarians for parliamentarians." There was a kind of public interest input that was broader than the mere fact that parliamentarians were increasing their own salaries.
In all issues related to the functioning of the system and the trust that the public should have in the system, the smaller, non-registered parties will not be represented. The Supreme Court decision in the Figueroa case of last June recognized these parties as being instrumental in the quality of the democratic debate. The minority points will not be represented in the overall system.
We know what happened. You will probably come back to us with another bill to adjust the electoral act to conform to the decision in Figueroa in terms of the number of candidates for a party. There may be other decisions coming down the road, always from minority parties. That is why I think it is important, when we are dealing with such a fundamental element of democracy, that all those who have an interest, whatever the size of the interest, should be heard and should be part of the reflection to make sure that we still have the best system.
Mr. Saada: Let me follow up on two of these items. First, as you may know, the changes that would be required to exercise democracy in our country are changes that are not only referred to parliamentarians. They will be referred to the public at large. This is touching on my democratic reform package, and I do intend to consult broadly, generally speaking, with Canadians on this issue.
As to the Figueroa case, you are correct in the sense that the bill, I hope, will be coming to you soon in this regard. Again, it allows me to answer your concern about broader consultation patterns.
The Figueroa case was addressed by the Supreme Court last June 27. It was stayed for one year prior to implementation.
In the name of my government, I have taken a two-pronged action. The first is to have a bridge to guarantee that when we come to June 27, 2004, the expiry date of the stay, we have some legislation to make sure that we do not have abuses of the political system in terms of the tax rate.
At the same time as I was giving this bill to the standing committee of the House of Commons, we implemented a second prong to the approach, which was to ask the committee to take one year to look at all the implications of the Figueroa decision and come back to the House with a draft bill. This is a much broader issue.
Your concerns, senator, are pertinent, and I share them. That is exactly the spirit in which we have approached this democratic reform package. We have especially asked the standing committee of the House of Commons to come back with a draft bill.
Senator Joyal: Following the Figueroa decision, I wrote a letter to your predecessor asking for specific changes to the bill. If I send it to you, I hope that it will be transferred to the committee.
Mr. Saada: I will look forward to receiving it.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, on page 2 of your text, the third paragraph, you draw our attention to the Chief Electoral Officer's letter saying that it would be possible for Elections Canada to implement the new electoral boundaries for any election called on or after April 1. I guess you are making the argument that that is why you chose that date.
Should this honourable committee clearly adduce either from the Chief Electoral Officer or from others that, in order to guarantee that Canadians will have a democratic and fair election, Elections Canada could be better prepared if they had a couple of more months, would you support an amendment to that effect?
Mr. Saada: I would not because the director general of elections has agreed that the date of April 1 is feasible. Any delay until after this date is simply a delay to recognize a change in the demographics of the country.
Senator Kinsella: I do not know why we are at this committee. Let us say that we gather evidence from the Chief Electoral Officer that although he could meet the May date for an election, he would have much more certainty of no chinks in the system and be much better prepared with a couple more months. Therefore, the interests of all Canadians in a fair and democratic election would be served with an amendment. You are telling us that you would not support such an amendment. It makes a farce of these proceedings.
The Chairman: Senator Kinsella, just for the record, the question that you are posing with respect to Mr. Kingsley is hypothetical. You are not basing it on information that you have from Mr. Kingsley.
Senator Kinsella: We have Mr. Kingsley on the witness list. We will ask him that question.
The Chairman: The question you are posing to the minister is hypothetical. Do you know in fact how Mr. Kingsley will respond? If we have a factum to put to the minister, we should get it on the table now.
Senator Kinsella: I know the answer that the minister has given to the question I asked.
The Chairman: For clarification, it was a hypothetical question.
Senator Kinsella: It may have been, but the answer was categorical.
Mr. Saada: It was not theoretical.
Could I refer you to a simple paragraph, which indeed makes the remainder very theoretical and hypothetical.
I am quoting from a letter of the Chief Electoral Officer dated July 16, 2003 to our ministry wrote. He wrote:
I have reviewed the feasibility of early implementation and would like to advise you that it would be possible for my Office —
The Chairman: Minister, could you hold on for one moment. It is in the briefing book at tab C.
Mr. Saada: It is a letter sent to Mr. Adams, Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the fourth paragraph, he writes:
I have reviewed the feasibility of early implementation and would like to advise you that it will be possible for my Office to implement this scenario by April 1, 2004; the feasibility of doing so would be dependent on certain conditions being met.
The conditions have been met as witnessed by the confirmation that we had in a press release dated November 12, 2003. It is also in tab C of the book. It states:
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada...would like to reiterate the fact that, as mandated by law, Elections Canada must be ready at all times to conduct a general election or referendum
Elections Canada is ready to conduct a general election in the 301-seat scenario and continues to prepare for a general election under the 308-seat scenario for April 1, 2004.
I must take Mr. Kingsley's statement at face value. He tells me they would be ready.
Senator Bryden: It might be relevant that Mr. Kingsley and his assistant are sitting on a bench outside waiting to be the next witnesses.
The Chairman: Senator Kinsella, that is probably a question better put to Mr. Kingsley.
Senator Kinsella: The point that I have established is that it does not matter whether we get evidence from the Chief Electoral Officer. If it is that kind of evidence, the minister will not support our amendment. That was my first point.
The minister has raised the thesis of our Canadian parliamentary system, which is based on political parties. I share the view — as do those around the table — that under the Westminster parliamentary system of democracy, political parties are a good thing. Many people think they are a bad thing.
We organize ourselves with a tremendously large number of publicly-spirited Canadians supporting the political party. That in my judgment is a good thing.
The minister has drawn our attention to the fact that this bill was originally crafted given the circumstances of a time and place. It was introduced into this house. Before us is a bill that was introduced to the Senate by message from the House of Commons in an environment that was radically different.
I accept the minister's principle that legislation is drafted and crafted ever mindful of the milieu, time and circumstances of the here and now. Those times and circumstances are that the official opposition has undergone a significant transformation since last fall. Yes, it is a political consideration as opposed to a legal one. It is political not only in a partisan sense but also in the sense that our entire system is dependent upon functioning political parties. This is why we have electoral financing laws, et cetera.
Why do you think this act is fair? Why would it not be the kind of circumstance where a compromise could be reached? Rather than the date that the Liberal Party wants, April 1, why not meet the official opposition party halfway because we are in the process of electing a new leader? We are in the process of holding founding meetings in the 301 ridings.
We know that the Prime Minister has a special interest. If the date has to be advanced from August 25, why not advance it to sometime in early June? Would that not be fairer to an official opposition party that is undergoing a leadership process? All the parties must go through the nomination process. That is reality, and it is political situation. It is not political in the partisan sense but in the sense that our parliamentary system is dependent upon parties.
Mr. Saada: Senator, I would distinguish between the coming into force of an election map and an election call. An election call is not up to me or anyone around this table. Does the Canadian public have to suffer the consequences of delaying for political purposes the implementation of the new map? Does the Canadian public have to suffer the consequences of changing the political structures within a given political party?
If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that as soon as there is a change in one political party, a change it made by itself, we are to delay the implementation of a new map. It would mean that we would never change the map. I beg to differ that the argument itself is very political.
In Quebec, as I said, the time frame is three months. If you want to apply your principle, we should apply it also in terms of reducing time, not increasing time.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I must attend a vote in the House of Commons. I do not know if I mentioned that to you.
The Chairman: You did.
Mr. Saada: I need to leave at 5:15.
The Chairman: There are two questioners on the list.
Senator Murray: First, one of the conditions that the Chief Electoral Officer set in respect of the April 1 date was that all the returning officers be appointed by mid-September. How many of them were appointed by mid-September?
Second, what kind of shape is the permanent register of voters in as we speak? I will leave it at that.
Mr. Saada: As far as the issue of the returning officers is concerned, we had 15 seats to fill when I took office.
Senator Murray: By September?
Mr. Saada: I cannot answer you because I was not there in September to do that.
Senator Murray: With the greatest respect, that is the wrong answer. You are the minister in charge of the bill. Canadians would want to know, I think, that you have satisfied yourself, before you proceed with the bill, that the conditions that Mr. Kingsley set have been met, especially — because it has to do with the effectiveness of the voting process — that those returning officers had indeed been appointed by mid-September.
Mr. Saada: Senator, I will clear something up here, if I may. If you ask me a question of knowledge of something which preceded my entry into office and if it has an impact on my situation today, I should know it. If it has no impact on what is happening today, it is a different ball game.
When I came into office we had, I believe, 15 vacant seats. We have filled most of the seats. The only new seats that have become vacant again result from resignations which came in-between.
As far as the issue of the preparedness of Elections Canada, they are the ones running the show in terms of elections and they are the ones who should tell you whether they are ready for that.
Senator Murray: There are two points to be made here. First, if there were 15 vacant seats on December 12 when you took office, God alone knows how many were vacant in mid-September, which was the date Mr. Kingsley set. It is an important point. If one constituency is not ready or if the process is flawed, we have a problem.
Second, I make the point that while senators will ask Mr. Kingsley all these questions, you are the responsible minister. People would like to know that you have satisfied yourself on all these points.
In what kind of shape is the voters' list? Are you familiar with the study conducted a professor at McGill and published by the IRPP stating that one of the reasons for the declining turnout at the polls is precisely the lack of door- to-door enumeration, and that this has also had an effect on people with a lower socio-economic status in terms of their turnout?
Mr. Saada: I am aware of the study and aware of the situation. I am aware also that, to the satisfaction of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have processed the requirements to fill the positions.
Senator, I am sure you know full well that we encounter resignations in appointing returning officers. Some people appointed have decided that they are not willing to accept the responsibility and they resign. That is the normal course. We must have returning officers in each riding, but this is dealt with in a direct and responsible way without problems.
As far as the register of voters is concerned, in Quebec we know full well that we have a list of voters coming from arrangements with provinces. We know we have problems with names. Mr. Kingsley himself has addressed his concern about this issue. He will talk to you about the corrective actions he has suggested we take. I am open-minded. If that is the answer you want to have, of course I will act responsibly. However, I do not believe that not having all returning officers in place at this time for the 308 ridings is necessarily to be viewed as a problem. We have 15 vacancies left, I believe, including two or three resulting from resignations not even one week ago. It is just the normal process.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I have two unrelated questions. I would like to give you an opportunity to correct the impression you gave in your answer to one of Senator Smith's questions that all parties in the House of Commons support Bill C-5.
Mr. Saada: No, I quite simply said that, strictly in terms of the principle of applying the consequences of the census to the new electoral map as quickly as possible, there was no problem, we all agreed on that, except the Bloc Québécois. I am going by memory here, so perhaps I stand to be corrected. I was a member of the committee at the time; the Bloc Québécois's argument had to do with the substance, particularly with respect to the Roberval area.
Senator Nolin: There are two parties in the House of Commons that were against Bill C-5.
Mr. Saada: When Bill C-49 was under consideration — wait a minute — I cannot remember whether the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives voted the same way.
Senator Nolin: We have a bill, Bill C-5. Two parties in the House of Commons opposed reintroduction of this bill. It is a minor point. Mr. Saada, I do not want the record of our conversation to leave the impression that the House of Commons is in unanimous agreement, except for the Bloc Québécois in Roberval.
My main question is the following: on page 2 of your document, it appears that Mr. Kingsley's letter of July 17th was ultimately the spark that resulted in Bill C-5 coming before us, is that right?
Mr. Saada: Could you rephrase your question?
Senator Nolin: When one reads page 2 of your document, the letter from Mr. Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, dated July 17, 2003, appears to be what sparked or triggered the current version of the bill, i.e., Bill C-5. Is that right?
Mr. Saada: No, that is not quite right. Discussions were held at the time on the issue of implementing the new electoral map. In order to give you a precise answer, I should go back and consult the documents or debates from that time. The letter put all of that thinking into concrete form.
A lot of people back then were saying that the effective date of the new map would have to be moved up if possible. The letter made it known that it was technically possible.
Senator Nolin: When you were having those discussions before the July letter — later we will ask Mr. Kingsley what prompted him to write that letter — were you discussing a one of-a-kind, ad hoc measure, just this once or for the future? From now on, the legislation should be changed to reduce the grace period, as the Lortie commission recommends, between the date of publication of the representation order in the official Gazette and its coming into force. Were those discussions ad hoc or general?
Mr. Saada: Off the top of my head, a lot of people were talking about the role of computers in the acceleration of the electoral boundaries readjustment process. Some were talking about speeding up the process in order to actually reflect a much more up-to-date demographic distribution. Some were discussing political considerations; on all sides of the House, by the way, people were talking about these things. It is hard to give a straight answer that it was black and white. It was much less clear than that. All of these concepts were jumbled together. Clearly, political arguments got mixed up with philosophical or principle-based arguments.
Senator Nolin: Given the time remaining, I am going to end my questions there.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for taking the time to be with us today.
I would like to welcome Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer. Ms. Diane Davidson is with Mr. Kingsley this evening. Welcome and thank you for taking the time to be with us this evening.
I understand Mr. Kingsley will be making a brief presentation to be followed by questions from honourable senators.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege for me to appear before this committee during its study of Bill C-5, respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Diane Davidson, who is the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, accompanies me. I am always pleased to meet with this committee, and I particularly value this opportunity because it allows me to bring you up to date on the election readiness plans of my office. Before doing so, it is important to outline the steps that led to my decision to announce publicly our readiness plans under the 308 new electoral district boundaries last July.
Last summer the possibility of reducing the implementation period for the 2003 representation order became a matter of public interest and discussion as reflected in media reports that you saw. I decided it was time to review our readiness plans and to inform Parliament of the feasibility of implementing the 2003 representation order by April 1, 2004, the earliest date possible for Elections Canada.
I would like to point out that section 25 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act required me to launch readiness initiatives upon proclamation of the representation order on August 25, 2003. In essence, I had the choice of waiting for the government to table a bill or to consult me in accordance with subsection 15(4) of the Canada Elections Act or to seize Parliament with the matter and make it public. I decided the best course of action was the latter.
In a letter dated July 15, 2003, to Mr. Peter Adams, Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs, I indicated that my office would be prepared to administer a general election with the 308 electoral districts called on or after April 1, 2004, a period of some seven months. I did not know what time frame the government had in mind, if any.
Consistent with Senator Lynch-Staunton's position as stated during the second reading debate of this bill in the Senate, this matter needed to be raised with Parliament, which is what I did. That is why I wrote to the appropriate committees of both Houses through their chairs. These letters, to the best of my knowledge, are shared with all the other members of committees. I am here today, before one of those committees, to examine the legislation, just as I appeared before the other one last fall.
I should add that a copy of my July 15 letter was also sent to all members of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties that is comprised of representatives from all the registered and eligible parties. Everything was posted on our Web site the same day for all Canadians to see. It was accompanied by a press release.
As Senator Lynch-Staunton mentioned in the Senate debate, more than a decade ago the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing seriously considered such a possibility and recommended an implementation period of six months. Under Bill C-69, which was reviewed by both Houses in 1995 but died on the Order Paper, the implementation period would have been seven months. Even though at the time this proposed legislative change was not contentious or opposed by any of the parties in Parliament, I conducted my own review of our readiness plans. I remember agreeing then to a seven-month implementation period on the basis that it was feasible from an operational point of view.
In the present case a shorter time frame was feasible in part because of technological advances, but that is not the whole story. Our ability to proceed with a seven-month implementation period was in large part attributable to our operational planning, skills and capacity, but especially due to our skills and adapting plans to changing circumstances, which I consider second to none anywhere in the electoral world.
Before providing the committee with highlights of my implementation plans, I wish to clear up a matter raised in the course of the Senate debates about the manner in which the Chief Electoral Officer communicates his views on electoral matters. While my decisions and recommendations have political repercussions and do not always carry unanimous favour, they are taken without political bias. That distinction is crucial. It is also important to bear in mind that as an officer of Parliament who was appointed following a unanimous vote of the House of Commons, and after three years as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's ethics adviser for his cabinet, I am accountable to Parliament, through whom I serve all Canadians.
It is not possible to carry out my responsibilities without discussions with a wide range of persons, and I will continue to have them until my last day in office. I will continue to table reports, to write to parliamentary committees and to take calls from members of Parliament, senators, leaders, representatives of political parties, their assistants, their advisers, the media, academics and others. I will continue to meet with all of them.
Let me now turn to Elections Canada's state of readiness for the general election based on 308 electoral districts. Consistent with the obligation in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the process of appointing returning officers for new electoral districts began last fall and the process is virtually complete. As of today, there are eight vacancies, six of which are accountable by claims of illness. The appointments have been made.
As I stated in my letter of July 15, 2003, a key element of our election readiness is the training of returning officers. All returning officers who had not been in that position for the 2000 election and did not previously receive training attended a five-day training session last fall. Between January 12 and February 15 of this year, all returning officers have received a further three days of training on our new processes, our new systems and procedures.
The assistant returning officer and the automation coordinator from each electoral district also attended, close to 1,000 people in all. Additional training sessions will be held in the last two weeks of March for the remaining eight appointees. These training sessions were the most professional we have ever held, and this comes directly from the returning officers.
In addition, returning officers will benefit from the coaching and support of field liaison officers. Under this new management initiative, 24 field liaison officers spread out across the land will provide functional leadership to returning officers for all their responsibilities. All the field liaison officers are experienced in election management at the riding level. They were returning officers.
A second important exercise following the redistribution entails adjusting polling divisions to reflect the new electoral district boundaries. The transition has been facilitated by the fact that some 5 per cent only of the 58,400 polling divisions had to be adjusted due to the new boundaries. The national register of electors has also been reconfigured to assign the almost 22 million electors to the new electoral districts and polling divisions. These changes have been integrated into our register and geography databases so they can be reflected in the lists of electors and geographic products provided to parties, candidates and returning officers during an election.
Another important process is the transposition of the poll-by-poll results from the 2000 general election to the new electoral districts. This allows us to determine which registered parties and candidates have the right to provide returning officers with lists of persons nominated as revising agents, deputy returning officers and poll clerks. This process was completed at the end of December 2003.
The transposition of votes has been provided to members of Parliament, senators and parties, along with official maps and atlases showing the new boundaries and names of the new ridings. Summary information has also been posted on our Web site.
All of these activities have been discussed thoroughly with the Advisory Committee of Political Parties. A number of items were even provided earlier than foreseen to facilitate the tasks of parties to prepare themselves and their riding associations for a general election under a 308-seat scenario.
[Translation]
Now I would like to turn to the area of voter registration. On October 15, 2003, all members of the House of Commons, and registered parties on request, received the annual updated version of the lists of electors for their electoral districts.
Since then, we have continued our updates using administrative sources and lists of electors from recent provincial and territorial elections. We have received recent lists of electors from every province except Alberta and British Columbia, where elections are not expected until next year. We regularly update the national register from the British Columbia provincial register, and we recently acquired access to Alberta's drivers' licence data. A notice to this effect was just published in the Gazette. This allowed us to update the addresses of more than 160,000 new electors in Alberta and to identify more than 60,000 potential new electors whom we included in our recent mailing to youths.
We have also added more than 250,000 electors from national mailings to taxfilers who consented to be added to the register on their income tax forms but for whom citizenship had not yet been confirmed, which they are required to do.
Using these various sources, we have added more than 2.4 million new electors to the register since January 2003, including some one million youths. As part of our initiatives to address the decline in youth voting, this month I wrote to some 1.1 million young Canadians who turned 18 since the 2000 election, informing them of their right to vote and encouraging them to exercise it.
Registration kits were included for some 300,000 young people who are not yet registered. Once the election is called, we will send a final mailing to youths who are still unregistered to encourage them to register and vote.
We expect to add some 3 per cent of names to the list as a result of revision during the election — the equivalent of what used to be added following enumeration; that is to say that even enumeration would only capture 95 per cent of electors.
We also expect address changes for some 12 per cent of electors as a result of targeted revision, regular revision and registration at the advance polls and on election day.
Returning officers have been directed to provide list quality measures and revision estimates to each candidate, along with a list of the areas to be targeted for door-to-door revision during the election. It is similar to a door-to-door enumeration.
We target student residences, high density buildings, new developments, seniors' residences and other areas. The media will be provided with these data quality statements.
During second reading debate on this bill, Senator Murray referred to the study on the register carried out for the Institute for Research on Public Policy by Professor Jerome Black of McGill University. Professor Black had a number of suggestions for improvement, a number of which we are already acting on, particularly by improving targeted revision.
As for the savings to the taxpayers, in the original business case for the register presented to Parliament and discussed in detail with this committee, we estimated that as of the thirty-eight general election, some $30 million per election at the federal level would be saved, net of the investment costs and annual maintenance costs.
In fact, the original business case was realized, that is, we achieved the break-even point, as of the thirty-seventh general election, in 2000, and we are on track to save $30 million during the thirty-eight general election. Indeed, we are some $30 to $40 million ahead of the business case at the federal level alone.
The register has become central to an ongoing partnership with provincial electoral agencies. Savings already realized at the provincial and municipal levels are estimated at some $30 million, to date.
The register data were used for the last two Ontario provincial elections, saving $23 million, according to the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario. And for the last two province-wide municipal elections, there were savings of an additional $6 million.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador reports that he is saving about $1.2 million over a four- year period because his province now uses the federal register and no longer carries out an enumeration. The City of Winnipeg also used the register data for its last two elections, saving some $600,000 each time.
Elections B.C. has estimated that it will save some $11 million at the next election if it can merge the federal and provincial registers instead of conducting an enumeration.
I would now like to brief you on the implementation of Bill C-24 on political financing, which came into force on January 1, 2004.
In order to inform Canadians of these significant changes, a print advertising campaign took place from December 15 to 21, 2003. We ran advertisements in daily and weekly newspapers as well as aboriginal, minority language and ethnocultural publications.
In addition, Internet banners, with a link to Elections Canada's website, were posted on major current affairs and business websites from December 15 to December 29.
Elections Canada has also developed an information kit, which includes a brochure highlighting the major changes introduced by Bill C-24 and backgrounders on specific issues. This kit has been distributed to political party headquarters, members of Parliament, senators, returning officers and major corporations and trade unions. Electoral district associations of registered political parties also receive an information kit as soon as they are registered. A series of information sheets and backgrounders have also been posted on the Elections Canada website, which provides information to the Canadian public on absolutely everything that we do.
Handbooks and forms for candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations of registered political parties were posted on our website in late December 2003, and those for political parties and leadership contestants were posted in January 2004.
New software for financial returns for candidates and nomination contestants was available at the end of January 2004. The software for electoral district associations, registered parties and leadership contestants will be available at the end of February.
In addition, we are preparing multimedia kits containing training videos, all forms, handbooks and manuals, as well as the software for financial returns; they will be available in March 2004.
The Advisory Committee of Political Parties has been closely involved in our implementation process. The September 25, 2003 meeting was devoted principally to the implementation of Bill C-24. Last autumn, I provided the committee with information sheets on the main provisions of the new legislation, as well as detailed responses to questions that various members had asked.
Members of the advisory committee have been informed as soon as new products and processes flowing from the legislation were ready. For example, on February 11, 2004, they received a notice of the availability of training videos for registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates, and that the electronic financial returns for nomination contestants and candidates could be downloaded from our website.
Finally, we have been developing a media and public relations campaign leading to the next general election. People need to know whether they are registered, how to revise their entry if required, how to register if they are not on the list, and where and how to vote.
For the next general election, Canadians will be able to find out where to vote through a voice response system we are adding to our inquiries service, as well as from our website.
Moreover, in light of the low rate of youth participation in the 2000 election, our public relations campaign for the next general election will focus in particular on reaching young voters, and we will have a number of partnerships with youth organizations.
We are also developing measures to inform aboriginal people and ethnocultural minorities about the electoral process. We have already done a great deal in the past, and we will do even more again this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity you provided me to review the steps we have taken to be ready for the next election. I also appreciated being able to set the record straight about the role I played before this bill was tabled.
In closing, I would reiterate that I have always striven to serve members of both Houses of Parliament, political parties and candidates to the very best of my ability, without fear or favour. I will continue to do so until my last day in office. I will be pleased to respond to your questions.
[English]
Senator Cools: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I suggest to the committee and to the witness that this meeting today be used as an opportunity for Senator Lynch-Staunton to have all of his questions answered and to have the issues that he raised on the floor of the chamber at second reading totally clarified.
The Chairman: How is that a point of order, Senator Cools? Senator Lynch-Staunton has the floor.
Senator Cools: I think that we should make it a point —
The Chairman: Senator Lynch-Staunton has the floor.
[Translation]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I would like to thank you, Mr. Chief Electoral Officer, for your presentation. You are a straight shooter, always honest and open. I like that. However —
[English]
— I am embarrassed that you would quote me in your presentation. I never had that happen before.
In tracing what led to your letter of July 15, you openly say that you read a lot of media reports and saw that there was much interest in the possibility of shortening the period we have been discussing. All the media reports I was able to cull during the summer of 2003, mainly in June or July, were reports on Liberal Party spokesmen, either for the party or for particular leadership candidates.
It seems to me — and I want you to deny it emphatically — that you were provoked into writing your letter to the chairman as a result of the intentions of the governing party to have the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act changed to suit their own purposes.
Had I seen in those press reports the same enthusiastic support from other parties, including mine at the time, I would not have brought up my apprehensions, which I did with Bill C-49, which I did the other day on Bill C-5, and which I am doing today.
You do state that you sent a letter to Mr. Adams in July when Parliament was not sitting and sent copies to others. That letter was more of a personal nature and did not get wide distribution. You said it was on the Web site, but I am one who does not go to Web sites. I do not like being told that something is on a Web site, even by my own party. I am trying to find out how we will do absentee balloting, and they say, "Go to the Web site." That is my problem, perhaps, but I think it is shared by many people.
To get back to my main concern, all of this was driven by one party. You responded to that.
I gather from what you said, you are just about ready for an election call after April 1 based on the new electoral map. Maybe it is somewhere in the law, but I do not know where you have the legislative authority to prepare elections on two models — the existing one and the one that will come into effect on August 25 of this year. Of course you have to appoint returning officers, but why train them so quickly? All this is to meet the April 1 date.
I will quote your letter of July 15 to Mr. Adams:
In order to implement the new boundaries by April 1, 2004, the appointment of returning officers needs to be completed by mid-September 2003.
By my calculations, there were only nine returning officers appointed at that date. The remainder were appointed mainly during January and February of this year. There are still some missing. How can you be ready for April 1 when you only had nine returning officers officially confirmed by mid-September?
I put together some of my main apprehensions here. I hope we can agree on your answer.
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the appointment process for returning officers, I have attempted to address in my comments our ability to plan and to change our plans as well. I could have brought along with me today an 11-page document, produced by a computer line by line, that shows all the steps and the training schedule that we have followed. It was modified from our initial plans.
I did not do this alone but with my executive. When we established in our minds that we could do this, we plotted out what was required.
I am not responsible for the appointments, as you know. The nominations were not coming in at the rate we foresaw, so we modified the training schedule. That is why I was able to tell you today that we have trained all of them except for eight. Those are the eight that do not exist. As soon as they exist, we have two more training sessions scheduled for the end of March. They will be trained.
I am pleased that I have only eight to train. It will be a piece of cake.
Yes, we modified our plans. It is because we were able to do so that that condition was met.
With respect to the authority under which I am able to proceed, the authority does not say start only with a change from 301 seats to 308 seats. I do not start only when someone else feels like it. I am the one who makes that determination. I could have made plans where we would have been winding up 308 exactly on August 24. I made plans to end on March 31.
The statute does not say to not start until some other date. It tells me to start. By the appointment process for returning officers, which is the major piece of work, I am pleased to say that two thirds of them are reappointments. In effect, only one third are new appointees as opposed to last time there was redistribution, where 75 per cent were new returning officers.
With respect to the main concern, I have attempted to address it by saying that what existed at the time was a lot of public interest in the matter. It was generated, obviously, by the fact that the media was reporting a keen interest in holding an election earlier.
I will tell you what my main concern was. I have alluded to this in my remarks. It did not matter to me where it was coming from. What mattered to me was I did not want to see a bill go forward that would have had a February 15 or a March 1 date. I would not have been able to implement it, and then I would have had to come before a committee like this and say, "I am sorry, this bill is great but I am not able to support anything because I will not be ready."
It is also important to realize that I do not write the laws of this land. This matter was brought to the attention of Parliament. The fact that it was in the summer and that some committee chairs were not getting the letters out is not the concern of the Chief Electoral Officer. I did what I had to do to write to Parliament. As a matter of fact, I did not neglect the Senate. I wrote to the Senate chair, the committee of the Senate on the matter.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Let us not prolong this. I still have my anxieties about the way you proceeded, but the point is that things ended up the way they should and we are ready for April 1. The issue of the returning officers bothered me because I only had your letter in front of me. Let us get on to something else.
I am not convinced, as you know — we went through this when the election act, or whatever act, was being changed — that voter registration, no matter how much money is saved, is better than enumeration. Will you agree at least that enumeration, no matter how costly it is, still guarantees a much higher percentage of eligible voters on the list than the registration system you have in place now?
As I recall our discussion at the time, I think the figure being used was that 95 to 97 per cent of eligible voters were pretty well guaranteed to be on the list via enumeration. I am not sure what registration brings in, but it cannot be that high.
I saw somewhere — I forget what paper — where you use a lot of information from provinces regarding driver licence registration, but a lot of people do not change their address. They move but they may not change the address on their registration for their cars or their licences until the renewal comes in. Even the provinces are not up to date.
Can we agree on one thing, and that is that enumeration is a better system of ensuring that as many electors as possible can get on a list?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, the economies are not insubstantial.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not talking about the money.
Mr. Kingsley: I want to make that point. They are not the motor force behind the register. We are aiming for a better quality list. The royal commission identified the problems with door-to-door enumeration. The royal commission recommended that we go with automated lists. More than 92 per cent of electors are on the list now.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is not enough.
Mr. Kingsley: We will pick up 3 per cent during the process. This is what our experience shows us. That will bring us to 95 per cent, which is the same percentage we achieved when we went door-to-door.
The issue with a computerized list is that we have to change the addresses for 12 per cent of the electorate. That is the revision process. To address that issue, we will do targeted revision in a much improved fashion this time around. In addition, with my provincial colleagues, we are working on systems where we will get address changes more up to date more frequently. We will also be trying to find ways of involving people — parliamentarians and others — to help us keep the list up to date in a more timely fashion after the next general election.
I understand that the House of Commons will be debating all of these issues in the near future. I would be pleased to come back and explain how the system works. At the next general election, whenever it is held, candidates will have to gear up in their own offices to handle a higher volume of calls because 12 per cent of electors will not be at the right address and 3 per cent will not be on the list at that time. We will emphasize that fact.
That is why I said that the returning officers will get a directive from me — because they ignored it last time — to share the quality statement about the list for their riding with each candidate and tell candidates to gear up their offices, because this is one of the problems that arose at the last general election. The offices of the candidates were not geared for the higher number of calls, and we will put that message out.
Perhaps then we can have a debate on the results of that general election to see how people feel. If there is a general consensus, we can scratch the list and go back to door-to-door. It is not something to which I would object.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: In the Supplementary Estimates, you are asking for $58 million, of which $22 million and a bit is under the Canada Elections Act — that is the $1.75 payment to the political parties. However, there is also $35.6- million figure for increased expenses of elections. Can you tell me what that is all about?
Mr. Kingsley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply in writing to that question because, frankly, I am not ready today to respond to the Supplementary Estimates. I am not in a position to reply today. I have not been briefed in that regard.
The Chairman: You could forward the information to the clerk of the committee, who will ensure it is distributed to members.
Senator Mercer: I want to ask a question about the Advisory Committee on Political Parties. I have an advantage over my honourable colleagues around the table, having sat on that committee since its reconstitution. I think I have missed one meeting, the one that has been held since I have been a member of the Senate.
For the edification of my colleagues, this is a great advisory committee that the chief electoral officer has set up. It takes the opinions of all the political parties — the five parliamentary parties, plus the seven or eight registered or eligible parties — and has sought out their opinions. Over the years I sat there, I saw a remarkable change in things that all political parties want. We all are practitioners of the game and we all need the same things when it comes to practising the game at the riding, national or poll level. The advisory committee has been helpful and I compliment Mr. Kingsley.
In my recollection, as we came through the process that led up to the redistribution process, everyone was supportive of the process at the committee level. All the political parties, the five parliamentary parties — and I know you do not separate the difference between parliamentary parties and the registered ones — all seemed supportive of the process but were more interested in speeding up the availability of materials and information that political parties felt they required. Am I correct?
Mr. Kingsley: That is a fair characterization. The emphasis was on availability of materials and supplies. Frankly — I must be very straightforward about this — the quality of what we produce now in computerized format is absolutely astounding. The political parties that are organized to receive this — and that is definitely the five in the House of Commons — are better served than ever before by my machine. There is no doubt about that.
Senator Mercer: I might recommend to you that, at some future date, you consider a briefing of this committee and of the House committee that would walk people through that process quickly to show the sophistication that Elections Canada and your officials have been able to achieve. That includes mapping that is done electronically and can be downloaded. Senator Lynch-Staunton and I are not the computer wizards that some of the people we work with are, but we would all be amazed to see that, and I recommend that suggestion to you.
Senator Kinsella: It is good to see Mr. Kingsley. He and I worked together a number of years ago when I had a deputy minister function in the Public Service Commission of Canada.
There are three points I would like to raise.
First, for clarification, on page 2 of the minister's statement he speaks of a July 17, 2003 letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Chief Electoral Officer has been speaking about a letter of July 15. Are they two different letters?
Mr. Kingsley: To the best of my knowledge, they are not, sir. I only wrote one on July 15.
Senator Kinsella: Therefore, page 2 of the minister's statement is inaccurate. The letter he is referring to is Mr. Kingsley's letter of July 15.
My second question is more of a public administration question. You have indicated that as a good manager you were dealing effectively with two plans. You had an initial plan based on the date of August 25. Then, when the April 1 date appeared, you developed a new plan. Did I understand that right?
Mr. Kingsley: Not precisely, senator. We did not have a plan other than the idea of getting to August 25. The thought that we had to develop a plan only occurred as a result of what I have already described. In effect, we developed one plan. I did not even have to double up the costs of planning.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you very much for that.
You outlined in your presentation the training process that you have gone through, and now you are down to just eight more people to train. If the returning officers had more training, would those workers be better trained?
Mr. Kingsley: Frankly, no, because our plan for training has been in the works for some time and we are offering them the optimum. One can also over-train, as I think you will know from your former duties at the Public Service Commission. We are giving them what they need to accomplish the task.
Also, we are counting on inviting the assistant returning officer and the automation coordinator for those eight ridings, which would mean up there could be to 24 people, if they have not been trained already. That is what I meant when I said that we have trained 1,000 people. We did not train assistant returning officers before I became Chief Electoral Officer; we did not train automation coordinators before we computerized the list in 1997. We now train all of these people in Ottawa to the optimum level, in my view at least.
Senator Kinsella: As you may know, I introduced a bill in the Senate that is word for word the same as this bill, excepting that I proposed June 23 as the coming-into-force date. Had a decision been taken on Bill S-7, what would you have done with the extra time?
Mr. Kingsley: I would have done what we will do now if there is extra time, which is to keep the plate warm, and that is it. I will keep those plans. For example, we have what we call an image of all the software that is handled in the field. We also have one of everything that is in the head office. Once that image is finalized and everything is tested and debugged, we put it away and do not change it, because I want a bug-free election this time around.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Kingsley, you mentioned in your presentation that you have acted previously as an ethics commissioner. Such a position might come open soon. Would you be interested in competing?
Mr. Kingsley: Is this the one for the Senate or for the House?
Senator Joyal: We prefer the Senate.
I would like to return to page 3 of your presentation where you refer to Bill C-69, which died on the Order Paper due to the election and was reviewed by the Houses in 1995. I do not have a copy of the bill and maybe my question is moot, but in that paragraph you seem to imply that it was a permanent change to the electoral act to reduce the implementation period to a seven-month delay. Is that exactly what that bill said at that time?
Mr. Kingsley: That is what the bill foresaw. Bill C-69 was a total rewrite of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It was changing the way the public hearings would be conducted and when they would be conducted. It was allowing redistribution to occur every five years under certain circumstances and at the same time abbreviating the implementation period to seven months on a permanent basis.
Senator Joyal: In your opinion, why does Bill C-5 not implement that change permanently in the act, since it seems that you contemplated that recommendation almost 10 years ago?
Mr. Kingsley: That question should have been asked of the previous witness. I have no idea. I cannot answer that question. This is the intention of the government and I do not know the answer to that.
Senator Joyal: In other words, in your capacity and experience you are telling us today that it is no big deal to have a bill implementing the date of April 1 because 10 years ago you were already in a position to implement it?
Mr. Kingsley: I am saying that 10 years ago that was our view, and we have improved our tools since then. Yes, we can do this on a seven-month basis permanently in the future, every 10 years.
Senator Joyal: On page 10 of your brief you speak about the implementation schedule for Bill C-24. What budget have you earmarked for the implementation of Bill C-24, and are you in line with that budget or will you be requesting Supplementary Estimates on the basis of where you are in the implementation of Bill C-24?
Mr. Kingsley: I will come back with the answer to that question, as I will on the other question, because I did not prepare myself for budgetary items in the same way as I would have if I had known that this meeting would deal with budgetary items.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I have often said that Canadians have every right to be proud of our electoral system, and we have mainly you to thank for that. You will no doubt say that your predecessors should take the credit. That is why my colleague Senator Lynch-Staunton was so intent on ensuring that we understand the sequence of events.
You decided to write a letter in July to avoid being caught in an inappropriate position with the government. Those are my words, not yours. Does this mean that they do not ask for your advice before amending the Elections Act? Did they consult you before drafting Bill C-5?
Mr. Kingsley: As a general rule, they do consult us, particularly since the Elections Act does stipulate that the minister who was here previously will consult us. It is up to me to write to the governor in council. That is what is usually done.
However, I can honestly tell you that I was upset by something that happened to me shortly after I was appointed. I had resolved that when the occasion arose, I would not let myself be had, and it was early in my mandate.
Senator Nolin: The media reports are predicting an early election, and we have not yet reached the four-year mark. That is why you decided to be proactive and to say: I will be ready seven months after the representation order is tabled.
Mr. Kingsley: That is correct.
Senator Nolin: When you were consulted, did you offer to make this a permanent feature?
Mr. Kingsley: As far as I can remember, the issue was not raised when I was consulted.
Senator Nolin: Very well.
Senator Prud'homme: You know that the senators from Quebec have ridings, contrary to the other senators; it can be either a good or a bad thing. I would like to communicate with my electors but I do not know who they are.
Is there a clause that would allow me to know who they are? I know that all members of Parliament are entitled to have the list of electors for their riding. We are either the first or the second House, according to protocol. I do not even know what the boundaries of my riding are, which is quite unusual. And the rest of you do not know what your boundaries are either. I would like you to tell me, and I will not take it any further.
[English]
I will not abuse your kind indulgence. Nothing would stop you from considering my request. That will also be the request of many of my colleagues. I see the other side, Senator Beaudoin, especially younger senators who will be here longer, Senator Nolin and Senator Joyal.
[Translation]
Will that be prohibited?
Mr. Kingsley: The current Elections Act states who is entitled to receive the list. The terms are clear: the parties, but only for the ridings where they fielded candidates for the previous election, and not everywhere, and members of Parliament, once a year, on October 15, for the riding that they represent. That is all. I cannot send it to senators nor to anyone else.
[English]
Senator Prud'homme: I have a supplementary question. I will ask it in English to better attract the attention of my colleagues. You see the difficulty if you are an independent. Of course, if I were like Senator Nolin or Senator Pearson and I had that interest, I could go to my party. I am not supposed to have a party; I am an independent. I am one of the few who cannot in any way, shape or form do that. It is a future amendment to the electoral act.
If that question was asked, I apologize. Just say that you answered that question already. I just arrived from the Banking Committee meeting, where I have been trying to understand something for two years. That is not my favourite committee, but I am stuck there.
The other bill that we discussed this afternoon, Senator Nolin, was it discussed here?
Senator Nolin: It was discussed when we discussed the amendment to the electoral act regarding the new list.
Senator Prud'homme: No, I am referring to whether it was discussed today.
Is it true that you are not in a position, even if that bill were passed tomorrow and even though the bill refers to a date of September 1 only, to use it before that time?
The Chairman: Is this a question on Bill C-5, Senator Prud'homme? If it is not, I suggest we move on.
Senator Prud'homme: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson. It is always enlightening to have you appear before our committee. Thank you for your informative presentation and your very open responses to our questions.
Honourable senators, we have no more evidence to call on this bill. I will entertain a motion that we move to clause- by-clause consideration of the bill for tomorrow morning.
Senator Joyal: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Joyal that we move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at our next meeting. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Contrary minded?
Carried.
Another item, honourable senators, is the budget. It is fairly straightforward. You have all had a chance to review it.
It is proposed by Senator Beaudoin that we accept the budget. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The committee adjourned.