Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 20 - Evidence, January 31, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act, met this day at 4 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the committee continues its study of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The committee commenced its study of this bill toward the end of last year, hearing from the then minister and government officials.
The purpose of this bill is straightforward. It amends the Canada Elections Act to bring in fixed election dates at the federal level in Canada. It provides that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after the bill comes into force to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
Our next witness is well known to members of this committee, and plays a central role in ensuring the proper functioning of our electoral system. Jean-Pierre Kingsley was appointed as Canada's Chief Electoral Officer in February 1990. Since then, he has been responsible for the management of all federal electoral events, including the 1992 federal referendum, the 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 general elections and numerous by-elections.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley has instituted significant changes within the Elections Canada organization, as well as orchestrating and implementing major electoral reforms. His accomplishments have contributed to Elections Canada's reputation as a world leader in electoral management. After 17 years at the helm of Elections Canada, Mr. Kingsley announced his resignation effective February 17. We are pleased to be able to benefit from his knowledge and experience today.
Mr. Kingsley is joined by officials from his office. Diane R. Davidson is Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel. Rennie Molnar is Senior Director, Operations, Register and Geography.
[Translation]
On behalf of the committee, thank you for joining us. Without further ado, I will turn the floor over to you, following which there will be a question and answer session that I know committee members will find quite useful.
[English]
Honourable senators, you will notice some cameras are still here. Earlier, cameras were taking pictures of the Chief Electoral Officer. With the permission of the steering committee, we are permitting the CBC to stay a few minutes longer to hear the first part of Mr. Kingsley's remarks.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Elections Canada: I was touched by your introduction. I suspect that, unbeknownst to me, I may be swayed by sentiment today because this appearance probably will be my last before either a Senate or a House of Commons committee, based on information that has been provided to me. So far, this appearance is the last and therefore, for me, it is bound to be fraught with emotion.
With respect to all the changes that were brought about at Elections Canada, it is important to remember that changes were brought about by the House of Commons and the Senate first, and then implemented by my office. Some of the changes were on recommendations that I made, about which I am proud, I must say.
I was touched by your comments about the electoral office and the way it has been managed, and also by what senators came to say to me before this meeting. I have always appreciated the opportunity to appear before Senate committees and I have appeared before a goodly number of them. I remember Senator Milne in the chair on many occasions, and obviously you in the chair as well, sir, for a while.
I will begin now with my official remarks. I will start in French and vary into English once. Then we will hold question and answers — or at least questions, and perhaps answers. I wish to thank you also for mentioning the officials who have accompanied me here today.
[Translation]
Bill C-16 would facilitate many aspects of Elections Canada's planning and operations. When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on June 13 and September 26, 2006, I submitted a written summary of those benefits. I have brought copies of that document for you today. I understand they were circulated at the start of the meeting.
The committee has already heard from the experts on the constitutionality of the proposal. My comments will focus on the proposed legislation from the perspective of electoral administration. As it stands now, my office plans for general elections incrementally by setting regular readiness dates throughout the election cycle. The frequency of these dates is necessarily greater in minority government situations.
Accordingly, the moment there is a majority government, elections on a date set by statute would enable Elections Canada to plan more securely in four-year cycles, with contingencies for delivering general elections that could still occur outside the fixed date. It is important to remember that this is always a possibility in light of constitutional provisions.
There are a number of operational benefits associated with fixed election dates. For example, at the issue of the writs, returning offices could be ready to open with communications technology installed and staff hired and trained. Of course, by communications technology, I mean computers that play a major role in the organization of each returning office.
A fixed date for elections would also allow my Office a greater advance opportunity to identify and secure locations for polling stations that are most convenient for electors and fully accessible. Returning offices, when we believe it is needed, would also be able to do targeted updates of the National Register of Electors, in close consultation with members of Parliament, political parties and electoral district associations, in the month leading up to the writs being issued.
This was something I proposed in my recommendations report. This would result in an even more up-to-date preliminary list of electors for candidates at the start of the election and fewer revisions to the list during the electoral period.
One of the problems associated with the current system is that the preliminary list of electors does not benefit from the latest updates. With a fixed election date, updates would be done before the election call and candidates would have an up-to-date list when campaigning door to door, a traditionally important activity in Canada.
Holding elections at a fixed date would also be beneficial for our outreach and education programs, as well as for our advertising campaign, which could be implemented more effectively before and during general elections.
[English]
From an operational and logistics point of view, the fall, particularly the month of October, is a good time of the year to have an election. Based on my experience, it may well be the best, or, to quote Shakespeare, the least worst.
At this point, it is difficult to foresee what changes would take place in political campaigning as a result of fixed election days. Other jurisdictions, though, can serve as examples. When I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I indicated that the Treasury Board, by policy, already imposes a ban on certain types of government advertising during the election period. In my introductory remarks to the committee and in the discussion that followed, I queried whether the timing of this ban should not be extended to four weeks before the issuance of the writ of election, and whether the ban should not be expanded to cover political parties — that is to say, ban advertising four weeks before the drop of the writ when the fixed date is known. I understand the issue was briefly raised by members of this committee when Minister Nicholson appeared before you.
Finally, I point out that Bill C-16 would require the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend that election day be on a day other than the third Monday of October if the Chief Electoral Officer is of the opinion that the day ``is not suitable for that purpose, including by reason of its being in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance.'' As the subsection is currently phrased, it would be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine what is a day of cultural or religious significance and, of course, for the Governor-in-Council to agree with the recommendation, if one is made.
Since 2005, the Election Act in Ontario has contained a similar provision. My staff has had exchanges with officials from Elections Ontario to establish how they have dealt with that wording in the legislation that they administer. Elections Ontario consulted with a large number of religious and cultural groups in the province to establish days of cultural and religious significance to these organizations. Elections Ontario then proceeded to define in its context the meaning of the individual terms ``religion,'' ``culture'' and ``significance,'' as well as the meaning of the expression itself, ``days of cultural and religious significance,'' to assist the Chief Election Officer of Ontario in decision making.
While we can certainly tap into the work done in Ontario, Elections Canada must develop its own criteria, obviously, in light of the rich diversity of the whole country. My office would welcome guidance from parliamentarians concerning the meaning of these terms.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that overview.
Senator Milne: Mr. Kingsley, it is my understanding that the Lortie commission in 1992 commented that the type of system advocated in this bill would not work because the government could always orchestrate its own defeat. That point would obviate this four-year system. The commissioner also felt that the proposal for fixed terms presented several major problems and, as a result, the Lortie commission recommended against this kind of a system.
When you appeared before the House of Commons committee, you said that you were not consulted when this bill was drawn up. Is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: That is correct.
Senator Milne: Did you or anyone on your staff consult with the Lortie commission during their preparations for their report?
Mr. Kingsley: In 1990-91?
Senator Milne: It was 1992.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes: The report came out in March of 1992, as I remember. Frankly, I cannot recollect whether I would have pronounced on that recommendation at that time, and I cannot recollect that Mr. Lortie raised with me or my office at any time the desirability of the recommendation, but it may well have occurred. This is a 17-year-old memory issue, and I was not asked that question before. I would have to check my notes on that.
Senator Milne: Do you know if the government looked at the Lortie commission report when they drew up this bill?
Mr. Kingsley: I do not know what the government considered or did not consider in that respect.
Senator Milne: Do you think it is perhaps strange that a report that had 900 briefs, over 500 public presentations and two years of work was not considered when this bill was drawn up?
Mr. Kingsley: As I say, I do not know what they did and did not consider.
Senator Milne: I have problems with the bill. You obviously think it would simplify your work, and it certainly would do that. I am looking at it from a political point of view. You mentioned that the legislation would allow you to change the timing of an election by up to one week, seven days, if there is any kind of a conflict. What do you do about conflict with a moveable religious festival such as Ramadan, which occurs at a different time every year and lasts for a month?
Mr. Kingsley: This is why I indicated that there could be direction or something from Parliament about the meaning of these words. The expression ``cultural,'' in my view, may be even more problematic than ``religious'' in terms of interpretation. What is a cultural event? At what level of significance is it significant enough to recommend postponing an election date? Frankly, being honest here, every group thinks that its cultural event is worth celebrating and putting aside other events. Obviously, presentations would be made to the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Chief Electoral Officer would decide whether the officer agrees with the significance of that cultural event. Then, a recommendation would be made to the Governor-in-Council to postpone the election until the next day or the subsequent Monday.
Senator Milne: Do you think seven days is enough leeway?
Mr. Kingsley: I told the committee I would prefer the election be held the next day, because everyone is ready for it. When we announce a postponement of an election, it should be done months in advance, in which case everyone can plan accordingly. Most events probably would occur in such a way that we would be advised, but perhaps with Ramadan, it depends on when the cycle of the moon comes in play, and that could pose a problem. On the other hand, it would be an opportunity to recognize the importance of religious events of that nature for Canadians, so that is the positive side of the equation.
When you say, senator, that we seem to favour it, I am testifying as the Chief Electoral Officer about how elections are administered. I see the ease of certain things, but I am not saying that other problems would not remain. There is an issue. There must be, even with a majority government, a capacity to respond rapidly to a situation that may not be engineered by anyone but which happens.
Senator Milne: Governments fall.
Mr. Kingsley: Majority governments fall in the British Parliamentary System. We have seen this happen in most countries that have the British Parliamentary System and that have existed for a while. It has even taken place relatively recently in Great Britain, which is the mother of Parliament. The office must be ready. Canadians would not accept not having an election because the Chief Electoral Officer is not ready. The readiness must be maintained.
Senator Milne: Mr. Kingsley, when the minister appeared before us in December, he claimed that fixed-date elections would likely improve voter turnout — I think that was the terminology he used. When he was asked in the other place if any studies had been done that actually prove that a fixed election date improves voter turn out, he had no answer. Do you know if any studies have been done?
Mr. Kingsley: I do not know if any studies have been done, and I believe that Professor Henry Milner, who will appear before you, also testified to that effect in the other place. I am not aware of any, because it is difficult to make any kind of transposition. One must have gone from a non-fixed-date election to a fixed-date election to find out if there was an effect and, even then, one must determine whether all the other variables were fixed.
That research is not easy to do, as we are finding out in trying to understand why the rate has been dropping at the federal level, even though it was arrested significantly at the last election, which is important to remember. It is not easy to identify all those factors and isolate each one.
Senator Milne: When you leave, sir, are you planning to recommend that your successor continue with the elections among young Canadians that you initiated and encouraged?
Mr. Kingsley: I hope my successor will find that there is no alternative but to do that in light of the high desirability of doing it. Many initiatives were taken that must be sustained. They are absolutely essential to our democracy.
Senator Milne: I will repeat on the record what I said to you privately. You have been an excellent Chief Electoral Officer and you have been an international example of how elections should be run. You have made Canada proud around the world. I thank you.
Mr. Kingsley: That is touching. Thank you for having said it publicly as well.
Senator Jaffer: I, too, join my colleagues, Senator Milne and Senator Oliver, in thanking you. As I told you privately, thank you for the work you have done internationally, not just by setting an example in Canada, but for the work you have done abroad. I have heard good things when I have been abroad. I thank you for that as well.
I am having great difficulty with this bill. Perhaps you can help me. We have the British Parliamentary System and yet we are trying to adopt another one, such as a fixed term, which is more like what our friends to the south have than the British Parliamentary System. In a way, it feels as if you eat the cake and keep it as well: we would have both systems if there is a non-confidence vote. You will always need to be ready. In your paper, you set out the benefits of fixed elections, but there may be a non-confidence motion. It is great if it works.
We have had such an election in B.C. What have you observed about that fixed-term election and any lessons we can learn from that?
Mr. Kingsley: I think tomorrow the committee will have as a witness my good friend Harry Neufeld, the Chief Electoral Officer of B.C. He will be in a much better position to tell you about that. It is better if he says it than if I say what he has told me.
Senator Jaffer: We do not want to hear what he has told you. We will hear from him. Are there any lessons you feel are useful? B.C. has had only the one election.
Mr. Kingsley: One thing that stands out is that people might have expected significant savings. They have not materialized. I can understand why, but it means that the money that is invested, if the fixed date is respected, achieves better results, in terms of renting offices at fixed times. The election date will be known so that people are not caught having to rent a facility that is less adequate, which is a problem across this land. If the market is bad for people leasing real estate, they wind up in places that are less desirable. These are some of the advantages that are achieved.
I also mentioned in my introductory remarks that the Chief Electoral Officer can prepare an advertising campaign leading up to the election period. In my view, if the situation is one of a majority government and it has crossed the threshold of the third year, then the odds are 95 to 99 per cent that there will be the fixed date, in which case people can do their planning accordingly and achieve some of the better results that are listed over there and to which I alluded in my introductory remarks. We would achieve better results if we are talking about majority government and achieving that date.
Senator Jaffer: I am interested in what you said about cultural and religious holidays. It will not come as any surprise to my colleagues that I am one of the people who follows Ramadan. Perhaps it is late in the afternoon. When you talk about cultural holidays, what cultural holidays do we have now? I am a little at sea about what you mean by cultural holidays.
Mr. Kingsley: Senator, my best answer is: What does Parliament mean by the term? It is in the bill. It is not something I recommended.
Senator Jaffer: That is why I am asking for your definition.
Mr. Kingsley: Would St. Jean Baptiste Day be a cultural event? I know it is on June 24. I have followed it religiously — that is a pun — as a cultural event all my life. I participated in it proudly. Other events that occur in October are related to different cultural groups. For example, it is harvest time in Canada. Some cultural groups may organize something around that event. It may be tied to their cultural heritage. What is the importance of that? What is the reach of this definition before one can say, yes, it is worth postponing an electoral event, where an essential democratic function must take place called choosing our representatives? That burden is a heavy one to carry.
Senator Jaffer: We may have chewed off more than we want to by mentioning cultural holidays, because there will be many demands in that regard: but that point is not for you. That will be another day's conversation.
This question is not directly related to this bill, but I cannot pass on this opportunity to ask it. As you said, it will probably be my last chance to ask it of you. You have done a great job in getting the youth involved. I would like to hear from you about the new Canadians, who represent the fastest growth in our population. How are you reaching out to them to make them aware of elections? How many languages do you send the material out in so that people are aware of the elections?
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of outreach, there is a publication called Electoral Insight, put out by my office. The next issue deals precisely with everything we do. The shorthand answer is that we produce brochures in over 30 languages to reach out to people. We put out written and television advertisements in about 30 different languages. In television, there are not that many languages, but we do it wherever there are languages other than English and French, to reach out to those people. I know Aboriginals are not part of this, but we also reach out specifically to them. We reach out to ethnocultural groups through written media, and through televised media and radio as well. That is part of the effort to reach out to them.
Senator Di Nino: Let me add my welcome, Mr. Kingsley. Obviously, we have all had an opportunity to work with you. I join my colleagues in suggesting that we will miss your good leadership and the great work you have done over the years, including, as Senator Jaffer said, internationally, with whom you and I have chatted in the past.
I will go back for a moment to the issue of the electoral officer's authority to recommend, or to deal with, potential changes to the stated date of the third Monday of October every four years when it is not suitable for election purposes for a number of reasons. My understanding is that the legislation provides for an opportunity to respect certain values that a large number of Canadians would find important in requesting or requiring that the date be changed because of the significance to them of that particular day.
I suggest that 20 or 30 years ago, we may not have been talking about Ramadan. This more recent phenomenon has happened in our country because of the wonderful immigration of so many people from so many different lands.
I saw that as an opportunity to give the Chief Electoral Officer, and eventually the executive, a chance to review the importance of certain times and days and to provide enough flexibility to embrace unforeseen changes that take place in society on a regular basis. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Kingsley: I agree with that and I quote back what you said — ``a large number of Canadians.'' It is useful to hear that is what Parliament has in mind: that it would be a number part of Canadians and not an isolated group in one small community that thinks its event is the most important of the year. The national impact is not there.
Part of your example is religious. The emphasis of my remarks has been on cultural events, which are, in my view, more difficult and problematic to come to an understanding of what is a cultural event that requires a recommendation to the Governor-in-Council.
If the election date is the third Monday in October, that is fixed. Is there a cultural event that starts on that date that did not occur before? At what stage does the event become something that needs to be taken into account nationally? That is the problem I am trying to expose.
Senator Di Nino: I understand that.
Mr. Kingsley: The fact that it is being put in the hands of an Officer of Parliament and not in the hands of elected representatives is the other issue I am trying to put to you.
Senator Di Nino: I see that as a positive in the sense it gives a flexibility to be able to recognize that things do and will change, and from time to time we will need to consider issues or events that we cannot foresee today. I do not see that as a negative. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I wonder if you agree with my comment.
Mr. Kingsley: As a Chief Electoral Officer — and the thought is occurring to me as we discuss it, which is why these are enlightening moments — since October 19 is the date in the statute, I would consider that any cultural event happening now on October 19 is not an event that would require a change to the statute. It would have to be new cultural events that would fit that bill. That is not bad.
Senator Di Nino: That is, unless you decide that it is an event of substance and importance, so we will change it anyway. Under the legislation, the Chief Electoral Officer probably has that authority to recommend.
I want to ask you also about a comment made by some of our friends about potential benefit to Canadians, in the sense that having a fixed date would allow individuals to better participate in the process by being able to plan the responsibility of casting one's ballot. Do you have an opinion on that? Have you seen anywhere in the world where such a change may have had such an impact?
Mr. Kingsley: The answer to the second question is I have not seen that because I have not seen any system transform itself, other than British Columbia, which is part of the British Parliamentary System.
Senator Di Nino: Did we see any difference in voter participation in B.C.?
Mr. Kingsley: I am not sure.
What did the first part of your question deal with?
Senator Di Nino: Do you believe fixed-date elections would increase voter participation?
Mr. Kingsley: In my introductory remarks, I was trying to say that it would allow Elections Canada to do a better job of reaching out to Canadians in terms of our advertising campaign — the election is coming, and so on and so forth — and in terms of preparations. We could therefore reach out to electors in a more meaningful way. I think that would be possible and that is what I alluded to in my remarks. There are also disadvantages, but there are advantages and that is one of them, in my books.
Senator Di Nino: In your summary of benefits, you list many. I want to focus on one that I think is probably key. Particularly in the last decade or so, we have seen a certain skepticism or cynicism arise about elections and the way they are called. I believe that this bill will help to lessen that, if not eliminate it. Know that the timing of an election is not in the hands of the Prime Minister but is known to all Canadians would assist Canadians in their planning, as well as in understanding that every four years — unless the government loses the confidence of the House — they will be expected to participate in the electoral system.
Do you think it would lead to not only a better understanding but to much less skepticism and cynicism, which seems to have increased in the last number of years?
Mr. Kingsley: It is hard for me to pronounce on the skepticism aspect, because that is more of a political judgment. I listed it as an advantage for other reasons. I will leave to the politicians the judgment of the political impact on skepticism.
Senator Di Nino: I want to clarify that from the standpoint of the Chief Electoral Officer and the people working with the Chief Electoral Officer, the ability to plan, prepare and structure an election should lead to more participation. Knowing that this is a fact that can be anticipated, the citizens of this country also could plan better.
Mr. Kingsley: As I have indicated, I cannot state for a fact that because the Chief Electoral Officer can do more things that will result in a better product and it will lead to increased participation. It is a logical extrapolation, but I cannot testify that this increase will definitely happen. It is also logical to remember that minority governments have a hard time sticking to a four-year schedule. I do not think that has ever happened in this country.
Senator Di Nino: We agree with the latter statement in the sense that it is hard. This idea contemplates a system whereby, under a majority government, we would have an election every four years. Obviously, you would not wish to take away from Parliament the right to defeat a government and to expect that an election be called. That situation would normally happen during a minority government, so I agree with you.
Senator Fraser: Let me add my voice, Mr. Kingsley, to those who are paying tribute to you. I have learned a lot from sitting in committees when you were present. On those occasions when I have dealt with you, as an individual senator on various matters, I have been profoundly impressed by your professionalism, your rigour and your sometimes creative approach to difficulties that I might advance.
I know you have probably driven organizers of all political parties right around the bend on occasion because of your rigor and your insistence that the rules are the rules and the law is the law, but I think you have done a great deal to bolster Canadians' confidence in the profound integrity of our electoral system. There are few things more important than that in a democracy.
To come back to this matter of days of religious or cultural significance, I gather that you are more than a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Chief Electoral Officer makes those decisions rather than receiving guidance from Parliament. I can understand that, because every group to whom ``no'' is said will think favouritism is at work here somewhere, or there is discrimination of some sort. That is human nature.
I can also understand why, in a bill of this nature, one would not want to get into the business of listing dates that are of significance. Anyone who was accidentally left out would be profoundly offended. As well, as has been observed, society changes. Things of national significance today may not be in 25 years, in the same way that things are of significance today were perhaps not significant 25 years ago.
How can we wrap our minds around this? Do you think it would be helpful for your successor to have the ability to seek guidance from Parliament, say, six months before an election date: to ask to appear before a parliamentary committee to say that this year, the fixed date will occur on the same date as this religious festival, that cultural festival, or whatever, and seek guidance from the parliamentarians on how to approach that?
Mr. Kingsley: That is such an excellent idea, senator. I feel for my successor. A lifeline has been thrown. It is a difficult decision to make on one's own. Of course the Electoral Officer will have people to advise him or her, but the Electoral Officer is still one person making a recommendation. If the Electoral Officer does not make that recommendation, the opprobrium attached to that carries with the office. It would be good to have the opportunity to verify with a parliamentary committee, a Senate committee, the events that are foreseen and what the view is. There would be an expression around the table, and the committee comes out with a view. I think that would be so beneficial to a Chief Electoral Officer. It is something I would highly recommend. If it is not in the bill, it is something that I would recommend the next Chief Electoral Officer put into practice. The officer should seek such a meeting and get the reading of what people are thinking.
The Chief Electoral Officer could also say, ``Here are the events that are foreseen.'' There could be something on the website, asking people if something is significant that they think meets these tests, and perhaps some idea of the tests could be developed. Whatever ones are of any significance would be brought to the table so the people could react to something that Canadians have expressed themselves on. I think that would be something wonderful. It would be just the thing required to make this work.
Senator Fraser: You have an interesting list or summary of benefits of fixed-date elections: hoped-for benefits, I suppose, in some cases. As you suggested in passing, nothing in life is perfect. Every silver lining has a cloud. What are the potential, foreseeable disadvantages to a system of fixed-date elections, from your point of view? I am not asking you for constitutional discourse here. I know you do not like to do that.
Mr. Kingsley: From the Chief Electoral Officer's point of view, from the point of view of management of the exercise, one of the issues is that in a majority government, people will expect the election to be on the fixed-election date. Something happens in terms of planning and we may become a little lax. When we went from a majority to a minority government, we saw that our planning, when we started to plan with computers and everything else, was really of a mindset of majority governments. We do not realize we are thinking that way because it is the only reality we have known. I see that as a possibility, and therefore a Chief Electoral Officer would have to guard against that and really drive people to be ready if there is a call, even for a majority government. If it is a minority, that would be the mindset.
I alluded to where problems may arise if advertising is not controlled. A lot of advertising will occur the Saturday before the writs are dropped on the Sunday. If everyone is doing it, then everyone is doing it. On the other hand, if there was a ban for 28 days before, who wants to advertise 28 days before? Maybe some people do, but it does not have the same effect. When you see an ad about buying a car, advertisers want you to buy it that day. They do not say, ``In 28 days, go and buy this car.'' They want instantaneous recognition. I see that. Fixed-date elections will change the mindset of people who plan elections for parties and candidates. Knowing the date will change the mindset: everyone will have that same opportunity if they are organized.
There may be other repercussions, obviously, that we cannot foresee, even if we look at what the Americans do with their fixed-date elections. We have noticed there that the campaign lasts a long time but this is part of their primary system. The primary system causes this to happen because the primaries occur so early. We do not have that primary system. Parties may want to identify candidates earlier. That may not be a bad thing either. It is hard to tell at this stage what will happen that will be untoward in terms of the system and what will be beneficial. I have not set my mind to this issue entirely because it is hard to forecast all the effects. That is my best answer on that.
I think there should be an agreement that the Treasury Board guidelines about advertising take place 28 days earlier. There should not be any advertising by the government for 28 days before the drop of the writs. That ban should be easy to achieve. All they need to do is issue the directive, so that any government advertising must deal with something that is essential and aimed at the security of people or the health of people. There is a definition in those guidelines. It would be only a matter of doing that earlier, and I think there should be an indication that this will be respected.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: We all feel a certain twinge of sadness, Mr. Kingsley, on seeing you for the last time in your capacity of Chief Electoral Officer. Perhaps we will eventually have the pleasure of welcoming you again to this or to another Senate committee as a witness for another prestigious organization.
That being said, on reading this bill which appears relatively straightforward, I see that many things are implied. For instance, clause 56.2 of Bill C-16 sets out two situations which can result in the postponement of an election: when the scheduled date coincides with a major cultural or religious holiday, or when it coincides with the holding of a provincial or municipal election.
However, as you well know from experience, other circumstances — equally important, in my opinion — in the democratic life of a country can conspire to postpone an election.
Let me give you one example that comes to mind, as a Canadian from Quebec. A Quebec government could decide to hold a referendum. Clause 56.2 mentions a provincial or municipal election, but makes no mention of a referendum.
Theoretically then, according to the current proposed legislative provision, a federal election could not be postponed if a provincial government decided to hold a referendum on an important provincial issue. This is one scenario that is not covered by the bill.
I can give you another example. Several years ago, Manitoba was the scene of a major national disaster when the Red River flooded its banks.
[English]
Of course, one would say there is no flood in October but there could be other natural catastrophes of the same importance. I remember well the discussion around Parliament at that time was that there should not be an election call because a significant portion of the population in Manitoba would not be able to participate easily because of the weather and other physical conditions.
There is nothing to cover such events but with today's climate changes, we are open to almost anything. Such events have occurred in the past.
Another situation is covered by section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it mentions insurrection, war or invasion. The section says that with a vote of not more than one third of the members opposing, the life of a Parliament can continue.
On the face of it, the bill seems easy to understand. However, when one puts it into the context of the practical world of democratic life, it is not as easy as it seems. If we suspend the date because of a culturally important event, should we not suspend the date if a significant portion of the population are unable to participate, or if there is such an important decision that, province-wide, citizens are called to express their views on a fundamental issue of politics in the life of this country?
I read the bill and it was easy to understand but not as easy to understand in more practical terms. Legislating on this matter would remove the flexibility that is in the current system. Such a built-in flexibility is helpful in response to the situations that I presented. There is an argument such that it is at the whim of the prime minister and so we give the advantage to the prime minister of the day, while the other political parties are less favoured and so forth. We have heard the argument. Two important benefits exist in the current system: the flexibility to balance the interests of groups of citizens or those faced with difficult situations of nature.
If we legislate on fixed-date elections, in realistic terms we should take those benefits into account.
[Translation]
Mr. Kingsley: You are correct when you say the bill would not allow the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend postponing a general election because of a scheduled provincial referendum. There is no question about that.
[English]
With respect to your concern about natural events, this item falls under the statute such that an authority is granted to the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend to the Governor-in-Council the postponement of an election in the event of a natural disaster. I have concerns about giving the Chief Electoral Officer a great deal of discretion to make such recommendations. Part of that concern flows from my experience in the 1997 election in Manitoba. Effectively, the Chief Electoral Officer needed to go to Manitoba during the election to determine a recommendation. However, in that case, I decided not to recommend the postponement because of the consultation process that I led, concluding with the political actors of the province in all seven ridings where the flood had an impact. I concluded that there was no need to recommend a postponement because of the way in which the situation was evolving.
However, there was pressure from some quarters that there should be a delay and that I should make that recommendation. Cabinet did not have the authority to act without my recommendation so cabinet did not act. The participation in Manitoba was the same as it was across Canada so there was no impact, and I was thankful for that. At any rate, the situation did indicate the kind of stress that was put on the position.
With respect to your third instance, war and insurrection, I confirmed with Diane Davidson that it would appear as though that section does not apply to such events. A Chief Electoral Officer would consider that to be a disaster because disasters are defined.
In effect, we are talking about your first concern, which is a referendum. With respect to the others, the Chief Electoral Officer has discretion to come to a determination as the Chief Electoral Officer has discretion about a cultural event under this bill. There is discretion now for the last two situations that you mentioned but not for referendums.
Senator Joyal: On this account, should we not cover the Chief Electoral Officer with the power in section 56.2.
Mr. Kingsley: About referendums?
Senator Joyal: Yes, give the power that the Chief Electoral Officer now has to postpone a vote on the basis that this statute creates an obligation to hold the ballot on such a date. There are exceptions in the proposed bill but should we not include referendums so that your act is not in contradiction with this act. At this time, Bill C-16 says the election has to take place on a certain date by a certain hour, although the Chief Electoral Officer has the power to postpone the election. The CEO has that power, which I think should be retained.
Should we not include referendums at the same level as a cultural day or a provincial election? In that way we know that the Governor-in-Council can advise on the basis of your recommendation and, thereby, not be in breach of this act?
Mr. Kingsley: I would need to think through the wording but I do not see Bill C-16 having an effect on the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer under the section that I have stated, which includes natural disaster and war and insurrection. That provision has to remain separate, in my mind, because that situation can occur while the election is ongoing. That section can be invoked while the clause in this bill would require determining in advance the religious and cultural events, and municipal and provincial elections. If there is a political wish to include referendums, then they would be included as well, but referendums would be covered in this bill, rather than amending the section on unforeseen events.
Senator Joyal: To ensure that we maintain the flexibility that is needed, this bill should recognize that this flexibility is within the confines of the mandate and powers of the Chief Electoral Officer. We do not want to create doubt that something cannot occur because there is a fixed election date, a doubt we did not have when the date was based on the convention. It is different now and there is no more convention. Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to change the convention and make it a statute. If we change the convention and make it a statute, we need to be sure that any exception already in the statute is recognized in the main statute fixing the election date. My point is essentially that. I do not want to argue more on this, legally, but I think you understand the point. It is not to remove that responsibility but to ensure that the responsibility is reflected in the main bill of the election date, which will become the framework within which the Chief Electoral Officer will operate.
Mr. Kingsley: That is right.
Senator Joyal: My other question is with page 5 of your brief.
The Chairman: Can I ask a supplementary question before you go to the next one?
Senator Joyal: Certainly.
The Chairman: If we look at the language in the amendment to subsection 56.2 (1), perhaps two words can help with the dilemma that Senator Joyal was talking about. In the olden days when drafting statutes, drafters would say, ``including but not limiting the generality of the foregoing.'' They used the word ``including'' in this bill, but the word that comes before that is ``suitable.'' It seems that ``suitable for that purpose'' is the main discretion given to the Chief Electoral Officer, and ``suitable for that purpose'' is extremely broad language to encompass any of the contingencies that Senator Joyal talked about.
When you look at the two words, first ``including'' but even more important, ``suitable for that purpose,'' surely that wording is broad enough to encompass the contingencies and gives generous discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer. Would you agree?
Mr. Kingsley: There is no reason to disagree, senator. It is difficult for me to split one way or the other because I do not fully understand what Senator Joyal has said about why there is a need to put this power in the main statute. I see it as an add-on to what is already in the statute.
The Chairman: This wording is in an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Kingsley: So it would amend the statute.
The Chairman: It is in the act.
Mr. Kingsley: It would amend the main statute.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Joyal: We will reflect upon the way to interpret those two terms side by side in the context of what I mentioned.
Mr. Kingsley: Section 59 deals with the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer in case of disaster, et cetera to recommend. That authority can take place at any time during the process and is not tied to knowing in August that there will be a natural disaster in October. I think that authority should be reviewed, in light of the comments you have made, to see if it is necessary to amend the bill.
Senator Joyal: I will look into that because now we have a fixed period of three months. The decision has to be taken at least three months before the fixed election date because as you read in paragraph (5) of the same amendment to section 56.2, it says:
An order under subsection (3) shall not be made after August 1 in the year in which the general election is to be held.
In other words, everything has to be foreseen before or existing at the latest on August 1. For anything that happens after August 1 — as I say, take a referendum that would be decided in early September — the Chief Electoral Officer would not be covered by section 56.2 because it would happen after.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, but on the other hand, if that were to occur, one must remember there is a provincial legislature making a decision knowing there is a federal election that will take place at that time. Both jurisdictions must respect one another in terms of these things.
Senator Joyal: In principle, the committee of existence should commend that. I do not want to give any names and any political situations in my own province, but I have seen initiatives taken sometimes that were meant to conflict to create difficulties. I do not want to say more but Senator Di Nino is an experienced person and I think he will understand, between the lines, what I have in mind.
If I may come back to page 5, you raised the issue of extending the ban four weeks before the issuance of the writ of election. You question whether the ban should be expanded to cover political parties.
When you wrote that, I had many reactions. First, would it be against the Charter and freedom of expression? It is a long period; and when we banned the publication of polls, there was much discussion and debate about freedom of expression. Four weeks before the issuance of the writ is a long period of time so we would have to address that question first.
The second one is you say ``political parties.'' What if you ban the political parties from advertising but you leave third-party advertising? The third party, of course, is covered now following the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding an initiative by the National Citizens Coalition at the time when Mr. Harper was a member. If we limit advertising, should we not consider including third-party advertising? Also, how do we reconcile limiting third- party advertising with the fact that third parties are limited in their budget, according to the Elections Canada Act?
I understand your motivation. You want to maintain a balance among the parties. Now that the small parties and their rights to participate on an equal footing have been recognized — I know aspects are still being debated in court but the main principle is there — how do you reconcile that with the principle that the Supreme Court has stated in relation to the Charter and freedom of expression?
Mr. Kingsley: My statement was made as something that the committee should look at, as I said in the House, not as a recommendation. I said the committee should look at it; and you have come out with an exceedingly good argument about why we should be careful about banning advertising before the start of debates, in my view, by quoting the Charter.
Of course, if one goes into any kind of an extension of a ban before the election period, then one raises that question. It may be simpler to let it go and see if there is an issue. That would be simpler than thinking about whether this ban should be extended to third parties, which is something that never entered my mind. I said I will ask them if they think this is something that should occur.
I was definite about the Treasury Board directive on government advertising, but I was not definite in respect of political parties. However, I wanted to raise the question so the committee had a chance to consider the issue and it was not left by the side. By mentioning the Charter, your argument is a major argument. One should be careful before going into this minefield.
Senator Joyal: We see a problem presently. The way I see it developing is that we have strict rules governing expenses during election periods. The Chief Electoral Officer is there with all the people to watch, check and answer complaints to make sure there is a level playing field during the election period.
Now we realize that some parties might have a lot of money. They know they will be under your watch during the campaign and they want to find a way to spend that money. We might find that by trying to be fair during the election period, we create the following situation in the months before the so-called election date fixed now.
[Translation]
Parties will free up some money and launch massive advertising campaigns, mindful that as of day X, they will no longer be able to count on you to watch everyone's actions. I have no objections to that. To ensure that the short campaign period is fair to everyone, a situation will be created where all moneys will be spent in advance of the campaign.
A desire to resolve one problem has created another. You have come up with a proposal that has led us to ponder this reality.
Mr. Kingsley: That is why we raised this question. I think it would be best not to amend this particular provision, but rather to wait and see what effect it will have on the first fixed-date election. It is always good to have some experience with a fixed-date election before considering any changes. I just thought it was good idea to mention this possible problem.
If I had any advice to give to a party with money burning a hole in its pockets, it would be to wait until the Saturday or the week before an election campaign to start running advertisements.
[English]
Senator Bryden: I do not want to say much more in congratulations — your head will be swelled to such an extent you will not be able to get out the door — except to say that when someone like you leaves a position such as this, it reminds me how excellent our democratic system is for the most part in Canada, and how well it works and has worked for 130-some years. Our electoral system is above question. It is open, fair and competent and that is due to the people who work every day under your auspices and your guiding hand, and to whom it means a great deal. I congratulate you for that, as we all do, and you must take away a great deal of satisfaction from having left this essential function even better than it was when you came in.
Mr. Kingsley: Thank you so much, senator.
Senator Bryden: It means a lot to us, as politicians, that there have been no situations where major decisions were settled on the basis of whether the chads were punched or not punched or whether the machine worked, and where decisions that have affected the world in our time are based on which party has the best team of lawyers and the most sympathetic judges. It does not happen in our country and it sometimes happens not far away.
We do not want to run the risk of attempting to streamline, make easier or even, less charitably, mimic either our neighbours to the south or some other democracy that has a different approach to fixed dates and does not operate on the British Parliamentary System. We do not want to allow the thin edge of the wedge that would hurt that foundation.
The worst part about coming in at the end is that everyone has asked the good questions. You raised the point that there are things that will need to be looked at after the act has had an opportunity to function. Is there in the law itself, not in this bill, a provision for a regular review of that law by Parliament?
Mr. Kingsley: There is not, in the Canada Elections Act, a section dealing with automatic review of the statute, but I will tell you it probably is the statute that is most often changed in Canada and therefore the attention of parliamentarians is often singularly focused on it. Now, I provide recommendations on a cyclical basis, sometimes based on election, sometimes based on some other event, which automatically leads to parliamentary committees, Senate committees, hearing me out on those things. I am sure this process will continue, because it has become an important part of the job.
I think that the fundamental question you are also asking is if there should be a cyclical review of the statute, and there should be a review after specific events. There were certain changes made to the statute on financing, if I remember correctly in Bill C-24, which required a review of the impact. I recently tabled a report with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs answering seven questions that they asked me on financial provisions of the statute. I wrote to them this week and tabled that report with them, so presumably that will surface. Obviously, if this committee is interested I would be more than happy to provide it with copies of that report.
The Chairman: We are interested in receiving that.
Mr. Kingsley: It will be done first thing tomorrow morning, sir. The order will go out this evening.
Senator Bryden: With the exception of experimental stuff that has happened in British Columbia, and we have a witness from there tomorrow — they are a little different on the other side of the mountains — would it not be appropriate for this committee to consider recommending a review section for this particular bill and this experiment that is being introduced into our system? I assume that 10 years would be a useful period of time in which the cycles would work and most of what can happen would have happened. What are your thoughts on a 10-year review?
Mr. Kingsley: I think the statute should be reviewed after every election for the first two elections so parliamentarians are satisfied that this statute is working the way they designed it to work, rather than wait all that time. There may be a reaction, something might happen at the first election that was not intended or it may work well the first time but the second time there is something else. I think the statute should be part of what the Chief Electoral Officer reports on if the issue is something that is administrative in nature. If the issue is political in nature, the committee should raise this issue at the appropriate time.
Senator Bryden: If that is to be the case, then the time to decide that is probably now. I think the committee should consider the possibility of making an amendment that states there shall be a review of this act after each election. That provision takes away the onus of someone needing to call for a review; it is a requirement. You can express an opinion on that if you wish.
Mr. Kingsley: I think the committee will have to arrive at that decision. In my view it should occur, whether it is a legislative requirement or not. I think a review is something that would occur naturally because of its political import. Parliamentarians will obviously be interested, as senators will be, in performing that review.
Senator Bryden: That may be so, but sometimes whether you want to do a review depends on whether you are a winner or a loser, and to whose advantage it is.
I was planning to enter into this discussion about the amendment to section 56.2(1), which says election day will be a Monday unless ``the Chief Electoral Officer is of the opinion that a Monday that would otherwise be polling day under subsection 56.1(2) is not suitable for that purpose, including. . . .'' Like our chairman, I think that subsection is not limiting at all, and it is not indicated here that this list is exhaustive or even an ejusdem generis type of list. If there were situations where it does not make any sense to do this then under that provision you probably can make the change.
I also was interested in what would constitute a day of cultural significance. Since the day that is suggested here is the third Monday in October, and Monday, October 19 for 2009, the question that came to my mind was, when does Kitchener-Waterloo have their Oktoberfest? That event is culturally significant. With a fixed date, I think we may end up with peculiar applications to have it moved and, indeed, something that may end up being a matter of some legal action.
I believe what probably will happen is that over time the precedent date will be, if this works, Election Day in Canada. Election Day will become known and people will be interested and it will be in place.
If you accept the Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest as a culturally significant event, the moose season opens in New Brunswick about that same time and no event is more culturally significant in New Brunswick.
I wanted to ask whether you have an opinion as to whether the fixed date will encourage longer campaigns. I do not know whether it is really true, but the system in the U.S. for the election of members of the House of Representatives puts them in a situation that they are always campaigning. When does the next election start? Most people who run for the House of Representatives say the day after they win the last election they start raising funds and so on. Some of us in the Senate might think that is not a bad idea because the elected folk there spend all their time doing that and the legislative power really rests with the senators.
Is there a possibility in your mind that because the date is fixed two years in advance of the election, an incumbent who plans to re-offer would focus their attention on their re-election as early as possible and perhaps not do a lot of public policy work for their constituents? Members of the House of Representatives have that reputation in the U.S. There are two-year staggered terms there.
Mr. Kingsley: It is hard to speculate on that, because now, even with a non-fixed date, I am sure political parties project a certain date and act accordingly. I have enough faith in human nature to think that this projection happens. However, because a date is not fixed they would take into account more variables. I do not know if fixed-date elections will create a major change in the campaigning strategy other than the fact that they know when it will occur. A fixed election date eliminates certain imponderables and it allows them to plan their strategy better perhaps than if the date is not fixed and not known. That is as far as I can speculate.
Senator Bryden: To some extent it is a leap of faith that fixed-date elections will work and work well. We do not have much evidence, as far as I know in this country. This type of thing has not been in place for a long period of time. Some of us have constitutional issues with the four years, but that is not your cup of tea.
I thank you and wish you well in your new endeavours and you must let us know about them. I do not know whether you send out emails or what.
Mr. Kingsley: I will let you know before this meeting ends.
Senator Di Nino: He is running for the Senate.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, our time is almost up but I want to put a couple of questions to you, if I could. After this, we want to have an in-camera meeting with the committee.
Your office has taken much time to prepare a document called ``Summary of Benefits of Fixed Date Elections.'' I want the record to show some of the efforts that have been made to isolate these items. For instance, the document says:
A default date for general elections would likely result in the following administrative benefits — particularly in the context of stable Parliaments:
improved target revision and coverage accuracy of lists of electors:
targeted enumeration could be started three weeks prior to the drop of the writ
longer period for electors to register or update their registration
longer period to work in co-operation with the political parties and local associations to focus on critical areas
more effective and efficient voter registration process
returning officers would have time and flexibility to choose an array of voter registration methods adapted to the local context,
And so on.
Then you have another section called ``increased voter awareness and outreach,'' which Senator Di Nino dealt with in some questions. Then you have the following section:
operational benefits:
returning offices could be opened up the month prior to the drop of the writs, mid-August,
returning office leases could be confirmed prior to the start of the election, no last-minute rentals of highly expensive offices,
And so on.
Then you even go into ``areas for potential cost reductions,'' and I found that interesting. You talk about ``tendering for local services and local offices'' if a fixed date is known, and you talk about ``reduced warehousing and preparation costs for IT equipment.'' You talk about ``training of personnel and field staff closer to the election — no speculative training,'' ``field preparation assignments close to election — no `just in case' assignments'' and so on. I want to thank you and your office for taking the time to prepare this document. It will form part of the record, but I wanted to highlight some of those things because I do not want your efforts to go in vain and the document is helpful to the committee.
I want to ask one other question. July 1 is the traditional date in which large numbers of people who rent accommodation in the province of Quebec move. This practice results in numerous changes of addresses. There are concerns about the time required for these large-scale changes to be incorporated into the national register of electors and reflected in the voters' lists provided to returning officers.
Will Elections Canada have the staffing and other resources in place to ensure that the Québécois who move on that date will be registered in time for polling day? Have you given that some thought?
Mr. Kingsley: We have given that extensive thought, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I provided an exhaustive written reply to the House committee on this matter, which I can summarize for you. I can also provide you with a copy of that same report.
The Chairman: We would like both.
Mr. Kingsley: In terms of summaries, we would enter into agreements with data suppliers such as the Chief Electoral Officer of the province of Quebec, where we would receive information more rapidly than we receive it now for update purposes. We would do this with other data suppliers as well, not only in the province of Quebec, even though that province is major in terms of consideration.
I think our lists would contain two-thirds or three-quarters of the changes that have occurred in July, based on the capacity of the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec to process those changes. We would get them at the same time, effectively, and do our updates as quickly as possible.
This process would occur as well with a fixed date because we would be able to do targeted remuneration in accordance with our recommendation. Then we would pick up other changes we may have missed in high mobility areas. In October, when students move, we would target them anyway, and they would have moved only in September, officially. They would only know their new residence in September. We would target those before the election and before the writ is drawn, if we knew the date.
We would provide everyone with a list when the election starts, when the first list is due, that contains the right information so that we would significantly increase the 82 to 83 per cent of accurate information on the 94 per cent of electors already on the list. The candidates would have much more pertinent information.
The answer is yes, but it is not 100 per cent. I will provide you with the written reply, which explains in detail how this works.
Senator Milne: Mr. Kingsley has stated something that brings up a past sore point with me.
Have you any data on how accurate the lists have been in the past; for example, the number of changes that must be made on election day or the number of new people who apply to be included on the list on election day? Have you any way now of actually removing people from the list?
Mr. Kingsley: We have accurate data. I would like to provide the committee with an exhaustive display of that accuracy in terms of polling day registrants, people who register for updates during the election period and in terms of the forecasts of data. We even have a study on how accurate we are in our forecasts. I would be pleased to share that with you.
Senator Milne: Removing people from the list is my concern. As you know, I have been working in elections for many years, and I am fed up with looking at apartment buildings that have three sets of tenants in the same apartment: the people there now, the people there before them and the people there before that.
Senator Fraser: They all have cards.
Senator Milne: Yes.
Rennie Molnar, Senior Director, Operations, Register and Geography, Elections Canada: We can remove them from the list during the election by sending revising agents to the door. The agents verify who is registered there. If they are no longer registered, we remove them.
Outside of the election, we obtain information from our administrative sources, such as the Canada Revenue Agency, driver's licences and so forth.
Senator Milne: I understand that is how you put people on the list, but how do you remove them?
Mr. Molnar: That is how we remove people as well. For example, we move people from one address to another. Of course, there are deceased electors from which we receive information from vital statistics registers.
Senator Joyal: I cannot resist making a comment here, when July 1 in Quebec was mentioned. It is exactly the illustration I mentioned dealing with conflicting dates.
The decision to put an end to the lease generally, in a civic context, on July 1 was done wilfully by the Parti Québécois government to prevent Quebecers from celebrating July 1 as Canada Day. It created, of course, a lot of disturbance in many people's minds because it prevented people from taking part in the celebrations, because they needed to move that day. You see people in staircases with their boxes and a U-Haul rented or whatever, and people have their minds on different issues than belonging to Canada.
A provincial government that wants to — a word comes to my mind, but I will not use it — embarrass, can do those things when they know ahead of time that they can create a disturbance in the democratic process.
Mr. Kingsley: First, I want to thank senators who have spoken so profoundly about what I have been able to achieve with my colleagues. I feel that those manifestations apply to them as well. I will ensure they appreciate the profound nature with which they were made. I am deeply touched by this.
When I tendered my resignation on December 22, I said that I would pursue my interests on the international field. I have received confirmation today that I will be the next President and Chief Executive Officer of an organization called International Foundation for Election System, IFES, which is based in Washington, D.C. It effectively deals with democracy development, with a lot of emphasis on electoral development throughout the world. Therefore, it is an international foundation. The name has been abbreviated to IFES. That announcement is probably being made as we speak.
I wanted to share this news with you first because this is my first opportunity to appear before a parliamentary committee.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for confiding in us. The clerk has just advised me that he read it on his BlackBerry as well.
Mr. Kingsley, on behalf of the committee, I conclude by saying we deeply appreciate you appearing today. We appreciate the candour of the responses you have provided, the overview you have provided and your insights. It will help us in our ongoing deliberation on this bill and on other pieces of legislation where your views are well known.
We wish you well in the next phase of your life. On behalf of all of us once again, thank you for all you have contributed to Canada.
Honourable senators, this session of the meeting is now adjourned, but we have an in camera meeting on future business of the committee.
The committee continued in camera.