---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 42 - Evidence

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 10, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act, met this day at 12:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chair: From Elections Canada, we have with us this afternoon Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer; Ms Judy Charles and Mr. Jacques Girard.

We welcome the witnesses and invite you to make a presentation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: I should also mention that I am joined today by Mr. Rennie Molnar and Mr. John Armstrong, both of whom, with your indulgence, I will feel free to call upon to provide answers should we feel that it is warranted.

We do appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act.

We have reviewed the transcripts of the Senate debates thus far and we will make every effort to address major issues which have been raised.

My opening statement will last approximately 18 to 20 minutes, after which Ms Charles will provide a more detailed presentation on the register of electors project.

I wish to begin by pointing out that the benefits of the federal register of electors, including the potential to shorten the election calendar, were acknowledged by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.

The Royal Commission recommended, however, that instead of establishing a federal register of electors, the federal level should compile its list of electors using provincial registers or lists.

In the period that has elapsed since the release of the Royal Commission's report, the feasibility of a federal register of electors has become evident. Based on Elections Canada's experience in computerizing the list of electors for the federal referendum in 1992 and then re utilizing that list for the 1993 general election, which occurred one full year after the referendum, we have both the expertise and the technology required to build and maintain a register of electors.

Furthermore, our consultations have demonstrated that there is support for a federal register of electors among electoral and other officials in the provinces, territories and municipalities.

Although the approach proposed in Bill C-63 for the building and maintenance of electors differs from that proposed by the Royal Commission, the guiding principles are the same. I will list them.

First, registration should be primarily a state responsibility. Under Bill C-63, the onus would remain on Elections Canada to build the register of electors through a door-to-door enumeration, the last one at the federal level, and possibly through the use of existing provincial lists, provided the quality of those lists is consistent with our requirements. Elections Canada would also maintain the register of electors using federal and provincial data sources. In other words, for the overwhelming majority of electors, even those with changes, voting would remain essentially a one-step process, consisting only of the act of voting itself.

Second, voters should be able to register after the election writs are issued, including on election day. Bill C-63 would ensure that electors have the opportunity to ensure that their names appear on the list by maintaining polling day registration, by extending the revision period by four additional days for a total of 28 days of the minimum 36-day electoral period, as opposed to 24 days under the existing 47-day calendar and by allowing registration at the advance polls for the first time.

Third, a register of voters should be adopted only if it is nearly as efficient as enumeration. Our research and our experience in using a one-year old list at the 1993 general election demonstrates that the reliability of the information in the register of electors, together with revisions during the electoral event, would be comparable to the information collected through the present process. The level of acceptance of the quality of the list used in 1993 was evident and significant. This is important to note, since the degree of reliability for the register of electors after four years is comparable to that of the October 1993 list.

Fourth, voters should have the right not to be registered and not to inform the state of their movements. Under Bill C-63, an elector would not be required to be listed in the register of electors in order to retain his or her right to vote. Persons who reach the age of 18 or who become Canadian citizens would not be added without their consent.

Furthermore, there is no requirement for electors to advise Elections Canada of their movements. Instead, we would capitalize on the change of address information that Canadians would otherwise give to the state to, for example, update their driver's licence.

Once listed in the register of electors, an elector may remain in the register but direct that the information concerning him or her not be shared with other electoral jurisdictions.

Fifth, voters should have the right to have their names or addresses deleted from a voters register at any time. In fact, under the bill an elector may direct at any time that his or her name be deleted from the register of electors. This will not affect that elector's right to vote.

Sixth, once the information has been entered into the voters register, it must be managed according to the strictest criteria for preserving privacy and confidentiality. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding this bill, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada commended Elections Canada for the approach we adopted in pursuing the practical aspects of this project while taking into account the personal privacy dimension. In fact, Mr. Phillips stated that from a privacy perspective, he would give this bill an A-plus.

To ensure that the privacy of electors is respected and the confidentiality of their personal information protected, the bill also provides for the following additional measures: The information contained in the register of electors would be used solely for electoral purposes; the register of electors would be shared only with bodies responsible under provincial law for establishing lists of electors, including municipalities and school boards; it would be an offence to misuse the information in the register of electors; electors would be requested to provide active and informed consent for their data to be transferred to Elections Canada from federal sources; and the provision of information from provincial data sources would be in accordance with each province's privacy legislation.

Furthermore, the only two-way sharing of information could be with provincial, municipal and school board electoral officials. In all other cases, Elections Canada would receive data from suppliers but we would we not reciprocate; nor would there be computer linkages between Elections Canada and the data suppliers.

To provide the committee members with a better understanding of the evolution of the bill, I will now present a brief overview of the register of electors project since Elections Canada began working in earnest to develop it.

In April of 1995, we informed the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of our intentions and received that committee's concurrence with our project plans. In terms of the equivalent component in Bill C-63, the philosophy and the approach have remained constant since that time. The major change is in respect of the additional measures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the information which would be contained in the register of electors. I have just listed those for you.

You may have read the transcript of that committee meeting at that time, or more recently, as well as those of subsequent meetings dealing with this matter, to which I will now refer.

Subsequently, we completed the research and feasibility phase of the project which demonstrated that it would be economical to build a register of electors at the federal level, even if done entirely at that level alone, and that it could be updated to the degree of reliability to which I alluded earlier using federal and provincial data sources.

To determine which data source or combination of sources would offer the best means of keeping the register of electors current, we examined a number of data bases. At the federal level, this included data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Revenue Canada and the Canada Post Corporation. Among the provincial and territorial data sources examined were driver's licence, health insurance, vital statistics and property assessment data. We also considered data bases maintained by telephone companies and public utilities commissions.

From the research, we were able to determine which sources were the best in terms of coverage, accuracy and ease of access to obtain the necessary tombstone data to update the register, specifically, the electors' full names, addresses and dates of birth.

During her presentation, Ms Charles will elaborate on the data sources that were determined to be the best for the purpose of maintaining the register of electors.

We met with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in December of 1995, at which time we apprised the members of the findings of the research and feasibility study. On March 27, 1996, we distributed to each committee member a copy of the research and feasibility report, the draft of the proposed legislation and a three-page summary of the proposed legislation which included an overview of the 36-day electoral calendar that was essentially the same as that contained in Bill C-63.

We met again with the committee on April 30, 1996 to discuss the register of electors project further and to brief the members on two options for the building of the register of electors. These options were a mail-out/mail-back enumeration outside the electoral period, avoiding door-to-door, or a door-to-door enumeration during the electoral period.

The committee members acknowledged the benefits of moving to a register system with a shortened electoral calendar, as well as their support for the project. The committee chairman indicated that another meeting would be convened to consider the matter further once the members of the committee had consulted their caucuses and political parties.

From May to July of this year, I further met with the leaders of the registered political parties represented in the House of Commons, except in one instance when the meeting took place with the president of the party. During these meetings, I discussed the concept of a register of a permanent list of electors.

As I have explained to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, while I was waiting to be convened by it, Mr. Gray, the minister responsible for electoral reform and designated by the cabinet under the law as the minister through whom the Chief Electoral Officer and the cabinet communicate, approached my office to pursue the matter further.

Bill C-63 is the result of ensuing deliberations.

[Translation]

I would now like to discuss several highlights of Bill C-63.

The major changes introduced since our meeting in April with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs include conducting one last door-to-door enumeration at the federal level outside the electoral period, and seeking active and informed consent from electors for the transfer of their data to Elections Canada from federal sources.

To build the register of electors through the mail-out/mail-back approach proposed in the feasibility report, the adoption of legislation would have been required by the end of June 1996, given the amount of planning and logistical work involved.

For example, the mail-out/mail-back option would have required contracts with private sector firms for electronic data scanning and capture, as well as with Canada Post for the distribution and processing of the mail-in enumeration forms. For economic purposes, it also would have entailed the development of partnership arrangements with a number of provinces, including Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland.

Moreover, since this was a new and innovative process, a pilot test was planned for New Brunswick before conducting the initiative on a national scale. All of these activities would have required considerable time, as I have stated to the committee.

While the current approach with respect to Bill C-63 still involves significant preparation by Elections Canada, it requires less lead time since the enumeration itself would be conducted in the traditional manner. This explains our ability to implement the register of electors within the time frame now proposed, that is, with legislation adopted before the Christmas recess.

Bill C-63 also proposes to shorten the election calendar to a minimum of 36 days, with special provisions for an 11-day waiting period for by-elections.

The Royal Commission recommended a minimum 40-day election period, while maintaining door-to-door enumeration. It would be interesting to see how receptive the political parties would be to this model, whereby the preliminary lists would be available in some provinces, approximately five days after the issue of the writs, but some 24 days after the issue of the writs in those provinces without permanent lists of electors where a door-to-door enumeration would be required.

In 1993, the Special Committee on Electoral Reform considered the Royal Commission's recommendation to reduce the electoral calendar to 40 days, but it favoured a minimum 47-day calendar in view of the impact of enumeration on the availability of the preliminary lists of electors.

However, by eliminating enumeration from coast to coast, the electoral calendar can be shortened even further since it would no longer be necessary to hire and train as many as 110,000 enumerators to visit each household in Canada, to collect the required information and then to enter the data.

It was the conclusion of the Royal Commission that a shorter election period would alleviate voter fatigue and disinterest. We know that it would also reduce costs significantly.

In fact, our research indicates that the register of electors, combined with a minimum 36-day electoral calendar and improvements to the revision process, would result in initial savings of some $30 million at the federal level alone; $22 million of this amount would be due to the register of electors and $8 million would be due to the shortened electoral calendar.

The cumulative savings would be in the order of $130 million within six federal electoral events. These savings would begin to accrue after the next event and would increase as provinces and territories use the register of electors.

In addition, we anticipate that municipalities and school boards would use the register of electors to compile lists for their elections; the Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorses the register of electors and has passed a resolution to that effect. Moreover, the Federation recently wrote to the Standing Committee on Proceedings and House Affairs to express its support for the register of electors. I am certain this letter is available to the committee.

Shortly after the 1993 general elections, I convened a meeting of provincial and territorial electoral colleagues and exposed them to the idea of a register of electors for discussion and to obtain their cooperation.

Since then, I have kept them apprised of our activities and of our contacts with their colleagues, the provincial and territorial registrars of motor vehicles and vital statistics, in particular; indeed, electoral colleagues in the provinces and territories have facilitated these contacts.

As Minister Gray advised this committee yesterday, he has contacted counterparts in the provinces and territories and they have indicated their support for the initiative.

I will now summarize our progress to date in establishing agreements with the provinces and territories to build, maintain and use the register of electors.

With respect to the building of the register of electors, Alberta and Prince Edward Island have conducted door-to-door enumerations which will fall within one year of the anticipated federal enumeration in April of 1997. Both provinces have modified their Elections Acts in anticipation of the federal legislation -- therefore, in anticipation of Bill C-63 -- in order to have the legislative authority to collect the information required under Bill C-63 and to share that information with Elections Canada for the purposes of building the register of electors.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Alberta and Prince Edward Island have harmonized their electoral geography with that at the federal level.

Therefore, under Bill C-63, Elections Canada could forego enumeration in these provinces and use their lists to build the register of electors, provided the quality of the lists is consistent with our requirements.

With regard to the permanent list in British Columbia, and the one under development for Quebec, the electoral geography in these provinces is not the same as that at the federal level. Furthermore, the process to convert their data to meet federal requirements is complex and is not yet available. The software does not yet exist.

For the purpose of maintaining the register of electors, provincial and territorial registrars of motor vehicles and vital statistics have indicated their willingness, upon passage of the federal legislation, to enter into agreements with Elections Canada for the provision of data; none of them foresees legislative impediments in this respect. In fact, agreements have been reached already with Saskatchewan and Newfoundland for the provision of driver's licence data and with the Yukon Territory for the provision of vital statistics data. Furthermore, a signed agreement is imminent with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for the provision of that province's driver's licence data.

I understand that yesterday, Minister Gray was asked if there is a master agreement that would be signed between Elections Canada and the provinces and territories. I wish to clarify that, rather than creating a master agreement, we foresee the development of an individual, tailored agreement with each province and territory. This is in accordance with their wishes and satisfies our objectives.

In addition, the chief electoral officers of Quebec and British Columbia have the legislative authority to provide their permanent lists to Elections Canada for the purpose of maintaining the register of electors and have stated their willingness to do so. The chief electoral officer of Quebec has confirmed this to the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the chief electoral officer of British Columbia has written to me to this effect.

With regard to the sharing of the register of electors with provincial colleagues, legislation exists currently in British Columbia and Alberta to allow those jurisdictions to use the register of electors to produce their electoral lists. Legislation that would allow the chief electoral officer of Newfoundland to use the register of electors to maintain that province's electoral list has been proclaimed by the legislative assembly.

In addition, both Ontario and New Brunswick are considering introducing amendments to their provincial elections acts to allow them to use the register of electors to compile the lists for their upcoming municipal and provincial elections. In the case of municipal elections in Ontario, a bill is now before the Legislature at Queen's Park that would allow the use of sources other than the current mail-out/mail-back enumeration to produce municipal electoral lists.

As the provinces likely to be among the first to hold elections after the implementation of the register of electors, Ontario and New Brunswick would also be among the first to benefit from it.

This concludes my opening statement. With the committee's indulgence, Ms Charles will now provide a briefing on the register of electors project, lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Afterwards, we will remain at the committee's disposal for questions.

[English]

The Chair: I would ask Ms Charles to please proceed with her presentation and, if possible, to keep it under 15 minutes, as we have to be back in the Senate at two o'clock.

Ms Judy Charles, Director of Strategic Planning, Intergovernmental Affairs and Register Project, Elections Canada: I will indeed do my best to make this as quick as possible.

As Mr. Kingsley mentioned, my intent is to spend the next few minutes focusing on those aspects of Bill C-63 which deal primarily with the register itself. I believe you have a copy in both officials languages of the slides I will be referring to, if you wish to follow along.

Essentially, my presentation will consist of five parts: First, I will define what we mean by "register of electors" and outline some of the facts supporting its establishment; second, I will detail how we intend to build, use, maintain, and share the register of electors; third, I will provide an overview of the selection criteria we use to identify the most reliable data sources for updating the register; fourth, I will talk briefly about the status of our discussions with data suppliers; and fifth, I will talk about the savings the register is expected to generate.

For the benefit of members who may not be too familiar with a register, we define it as an automated list of Canadians 18 and over eligible to vote that is regularly updated using existing automated and reliable information from provincial, federal and territorial government organizations. It would serve both as the basis for the generation of the preliminary list for an electoral event and would be revised during an election period. A register has the potential to be used in provincial and territorial elections, including municipalities and school boards.

As Mr. Kingsley alluded to in his presentation, a number of factors have made the register project an idea whose time has come. Many of these were identified by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, which reported -- and I am looking at slide 4 -- that the door-to-door enumeration is the most expensive and the most time-consuming component of elections.

The demographic changes in security issues, especially in urban areas, have made enumeration more difficult over the years. We know, for instance, that political parties have experienced continuing difficulties in recruiting sufficient number of enumerators and that residents are often not home or are increasingly reluctant to answer their doors. A register affords an opportunity to shorten the election calendar, which at the federal level is currently at a minimum 47 days. We know from the interveners who presented briefs to the Lortie Commission that a large number of them reported a strong desire for a shortened election calendar.

Sharing automated lists with other electoral jurisdictions will eliminate duplication of effort, reduce costs and improve quality. Further, by eliminating door-to-door enumeration at the federal level, we will be removing an irritant in the eyes of the public and helping to reduce some of the voter confusion which seems to exist when multiple jurisdictions conduct enumerations. Finally, our research over the last couple of years has demonstrated that a register is indeed feasible and cost-effective.

Slide 5 highlights the key principles which guided us throughout the development of this project. The first is that the onus would have to remain on the electoral system to reach out to electors just as it does now through enumeration. As well, the information in the register would have to be at least as reliable as the data collected through traditional door-to-door enumeration. Electors' privacy would have to be respected and the confidentiality of their personal information safeguarded. Lastly, other jurisdictions should have the opportunity to utilize and benefit from the register.

In terms of how we would build the register, slide 6 identifies the main components. The legislation proposes that Elections Canada conduct one last enumeration in April 1997, and that during this last enumeration, additional data -- namely, date of birth and a middle name -- be collected in order to develop and maintain the register. The chief electoral officer would be able to use provincial lists of electors in Alberta and Prince Edward Island to build the base for the register for both jurisdictions since they collected the required information by means of a door-to-door enumeration in the last couple of months, which is what Bill C-63 proposes. Simply put, it means that we would not need to conduct an enumeration in Alberta and Prince Edward Island next spring.

We worked very closely with the chief electoral officers in Alberta and in Prince Edward Island to establish common polling divisions and to share expertise and list automation, factors which significantly contributed to our ability to use their electoral lists.

I turn now to slide 7 to describe how the register would be used. It would serve as the basis to generate the preliminary list which would be available to candidates within five days after the issue of the writs. It would be revised in three ways during an event -- through targeted revision, elector-initiated revision and through registration on polling day. Polling day registration established with Bill C-114 remains, and under Bill C-63, it is extended to the three days of advance polls as well.

Our experience in 1993 in re-using a one-year-old list has allowed us to streamline our approach in areas to be targeted, such as student residences, new residential areas and areas of high mobility. Confirmation notices would be sent by mail shortly after the writs are issued advising electors to contact the local returning officer if any information on the card is wrong or if they are not the elector named on the card. Even with the reduced election calendar, electors would benefit from four additional days of revision under Bill C-63.

The bill also streamlines the revision process by allowing electors to make certain changes to their registration by phone or to forward their revision -- by means other than through personal contact. Finally, if electors are still not registered, they would be able to register either during the advanced polls or on polling day itself.

Let me turn to slide 8, which explains how we intend to keep the register up to date. Our research showed four sources as the best ones to maintain the overall quality of the register of electors. These sources are only meant to update information which already exists. If we do not have the name of a particular elector, the chief electoral officer must then write to this elector to confirm his or her eligibility as a voter.

About 16 per cent, or some 3.2 million electors, move every year, and our research has demonstrated that the two best sources to track mobility are Revenue Canada data and data coming from registrars of motor vehicles. The required information from those sources is tombstone in nature -- in other words, it is only name, address, sex and date of birth.

Approximately 2 per cent, or some 380,000, of Canadians reach the age of 18 each year. The source judged best to keep track of new 18 year-olds is provincial driver's licence data, supplemented by Revenue Canada information. For new Canadians, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the only source. And provincial vital statistics records were judged the best source to keep track of electors who have died. As well, any federal, provincial or municipal election could provide an additional opportunity to refresh the register and to add new electors.

To identify the best data sources that would keep the register current, we used four criteria. These are shown on slide 9. They are accuracy, currency, coverage and accessibility. We ran simulation exercises using lists of electors established for events held after 1993 and compared them to Elections Canada lists updated with various data sources. We also conducted surveys in all provinces and territories to determine if the results of our tests could be replicated across the country. Since then, our findings have been corroborated with actual data we have received from other provinces. Finally, we considered the accessibility of data and confirmed that there were no legislative or administrative impediments to use provincial data.

I will speak very briefly about why certain files were not considered as effective as the ones we are recommending. Our research indicates that health files often do not contain up-to-date addresses. Lack of currency is a problem identified for many jurisdictions. In other words, health is not a source with consistent results across the country.

Commercial phone lists and public utility files often have incomplete addresses. Information is out of date and is collected by household rather than by individual. Also, there are many unlisted numbers or addresses. As well, those files do not provide date-of-birth information.

Property assessment records would only be useful to update address information since they contain only the names of owners. No dates of birth are available, and in a number of provinces, property assessment is a municipal responsibility.

With respect to Canada Post's national change of address system, our test indicated that less than 25 per cent of the moves could be identified using this source. In other words, none of the sources that I have named fully met the criteria that we had established.

If you turn to slide 11, you will find a chart which graphically depicts the anticipated long-term reliability of the register. On the vertical axis, we show the percentage of reliability, while the horizontal axis shows the five-year period over which reliability is forecast. The solid line reflects what we have estimated as we keep the register up to date using information from Revenue Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, registrars of motor vehicles and vital statistics. As anticipated, our studies show a reliability rate close to 80 per cent after four years, based on a 70 per cent take-up rate for Revenue Canada data.

We know that based on our 1993 experience, we can run an effective election using a preliminary list at an 80 per cent reliability level. At that time, there was a statutory limitation, in that legislation did not provide us with the opportunity to remove electors' names from the lists. Bill C-63 would provide us with this flexibility and would lead to the list being more accurate.

The next chart on slide 12 depicts the anticipated reliability of the register over the shorter term, which I think is of primary interest, namely, the 18-month period following the final enumeration in the spring of 1997. As I mentioned, reusing the 1992 list of electors for the 1993 general election showed us that it was effective and feasible to reuse the one-year-old list and resulted in cost avoidance of some $16 million. This success was achieved despite the constraints in the existing act, which prevented us from making any updates to the 1992 list prior to the 1993 event. After one year, the list was at an average reliability rate of 80 per cent, as shown on the chart.

I will just spend a few moments outlining the estimated reliability levels through to the fall of 1998.

In April of 1997, the last enumeration will have been completed, and the list will be available to conduct an election in the spring of 1997, if one is called.

During the summer of 1997, the maintenance program will commence with elector-initiated updates. We will also begin to delete from electoral lists the names of persons having died if we receive data concerning death from provinces. For an election in the fall of 1997, the reliability of the list will be close to 90 per cent.

The actual maintained system will be fully operational by the fall of 1997 and the first updates from provincial driver's licence and vital statistics registrars will come onstream in January of 1998. This will raise the reliability level of the register above the 90 per cent mark in time for a potential election in the spring of 1998.

Updates from Revenue Canada beginning in the summer of 1998 will again raise the reliability of the register in time for a possible fall 1998 election.

Slide 13 provides an overview of the status of agreements with data suppliers. At the federal level, both Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada have committed to providing data to us following the enactment of Bill C-63. Discussions are progressing well with both organizations to develop communications strategies and harmonized systems and to work out operational procedures. At the provincial and territorial level, as Mr. Kingsley mentioned, we have received a positive response and are assured of the collaboration of identified data suppliers and chief electoral officers.

As I mentioned earlier, we have confirmed that there are no legislative impediments to the ratification of agreements between jurisdictions. Some data suppliers have sent us letters of intent indicating they will sign agreements once Bill C-63 is enacted; others did not need to wait for the adoption of the legislation to sign agreements and have already done so.

Finally, where registers of electors exist or will exist, as in the case of British Columbia and Quebec, the chief electoral officers have committed to sharing their register with Elections Canada to maintain the federal register.

Slide 14 refers to the way in which the register would be shared. To protect the privacy and confidentiality of elector information, lists produced from the register of electors would continue to be restricted to use for electoral purposes only. Bill C-63 strengthens the safeguards in place surrounding the use of the list. At the federal level, this means that lists produced from the register would be available to candidates and electoral officials during an event. On October 15 of each year, lists of electors would be distributed to Members of Parliament and political parties. MPs would receive the list for the electoral district they represent and political parties would receive lists for each electoral district in which they nominated a candidate at the last election.

The proposed legislation authorizes the chief electoral officer to enter into agreements to share information contained in the register with the electoral bodies interested and to stipulate the additional conditions under which information can be shared.

Slide 15 addresses the issue of privacy itself. I mentioned earlier that ensuring the privacy of elector data was a key principle guiding us in the development of the project. To ensure that we stayed on track, we worked with staff from the offices of the Privacy Commissioner throughout. Through publicity and advertising campaigns, and through information provided in householders, we will reassure electors that the list will be used for electoral purposes only.

Bill C-63 makes it an offence to misuse lists of electors and a warning to that effect will be printed on the lists of electors. At any time, electors will have the right to access their file, to opt out of the register, or to restrict the sharing of their data with other jurisdictions.

Most importantly, Elections Canada will implement the following safeguards. Provincial requirements regarding privacy will be respected in agreements ratified by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and provincial authorities. Computers will not be linked in any way.

Senator Gigantès: I have a point of order, please. There is considerable overlap between the two speeches. Why are we being submitted to that?

Senator Bryden: If I could express an opposing view, I am finally starting to understand what is going on here.

The Chair: Please continue.

Senator Prud'homme: On such an important subject, I do not think we should push people. We must be in the Senate chamber at 2:00 today. If we must return to this committee at 3:00, tonight or tomorrow, then so be it. This involves the most important aspect of elections in Canada, namely, the electoral process.

The Chair: Please continue, Ms Charles.

Ms Charles: Elections Canada will continue to see the lists distributed to political parties and members of Parliament, with traceable information to allow us to identify any potential misuse of the list.

Finally, individuals will be required to provide their active and informed consent to Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada before any data is transmitted from them to us.

In terms of the savings, we are estimating more than $130 million over the next six elections. This is based on some $30 million per event. An initial investment of $41 million is required to build the register. This includes development costs of $13.3 million, start-up maintenance costs of $1.3 million, and the incremental cost of $26.7 million for a last door-to-door enumeration outside of an event. The savings to taxpayers, which at this point are calculated at the federal level alone, will increase as provinces and territories begin to share in the register. Although we have not yet concluded our negotiations with the provinces of Alberta and Prince Edward Island, we expect something in the order of more than $3 million to be generated in savings by using their lists.

In conclusion, the highlights are: There will be one last door-to-door enumeration and more efficient registration procedures; I hope we have convinced you that we have taken a risk-averse approach; privacy of electors will be ensured; there will be a reduced burden on taxpayers; and there will be an opportunity to eliminate duplication at several levels of jurisdiction.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Madam chair, time is running out. I endorse Senator Prud'homme's suggestion that we come back, if need be, sometime this afternoon or this evening, and continue with Mr. Kingsley and his associates. I doubt that even my questions alone, which I think are pertinent, can all be put forward in this one short session. I will go over the broad question and, hopefully, we can agree to come back if need be.

Everything you have told us is based on the assumption that agreements with the provinces and with the two federal departments will be firmly in place by the end of April so that the revision process of the last list based on enumeration can begin according to the conditions on the amendments which we are looking at now.

While I have heard encouraging reports on discussions with Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and the territories, there are still gaps. Even with Immigration and with Revenue Canada, there are commitments but no final details as to how these commitments will be implemented, which sometimes takes longer to achieve. You often get a commitment, but it takes longer to implement the commitment than to give it.

I sense that we are being a little hasty at this stage in being asked to confirm a new registry of electors because we do not have enough elements in place to convince us that all those who are called on to contribute to the process have yet to sign on.

Mr. Kingsley: I certainly can understand the comment that is being made by Senator Lynch-Staunton. I suppose from the vantage point of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have been working feverishly on this with our electoral counterparts in the provinces as well as with the registrars of vital statistics and registrars of motor vehicles. We have met with them all individually over the course of the last two years. That is why, for example, some provinces have actually changed their legislation to pick up additional data that they did not need for their own purposes in anticipation of the passing of this legislation at the federal level.

It was made clear that some provinces felt they could not sign agreements until the legislation was passed here. At a moment in time, I will be faced with a chicken and an egg situation -- that is, how do we go about getting an agreement signed before the legislation is passed if there are some provinces that will not sign an agreement until the legislation is passed? And what do they do if they need legislation to be passed? What we do have are clear undertakings at the federal level and at the provincial level for the data sources. In two provinces, not the vital statistics registrars, but two officers of the legislative bodies -- that is, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec and the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia -- have made public statements -- at least one did so in front of a parliamentary committee. The text shows his undertaking that he will share his list to provide us with updates. He gets his updates from motor vehicle and from health records in the province of Quebec and from vital statistics registrars. He will also be getting data, and he needs that data, from the federal level for new citizens in Quebec for his list to function. All of that brings me to a level of comfort about this. However, that level of comfort may not satisfy honourable senators, and I recognize that.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Let me reword the question. Assuming that the law were in place today, could you get everyone on side -- on side not just with a commitment but with the way that data will be supplied, how it will be retrieved, how it will be inputted, et cetera? How long would it take to get every province, every territory and the two federal departments committed to the extent that you are guaranteed to have the information that you need to have a proper constant revision?

Mr. Kingsley: I appreciate the rephrasing of the question, senator. It must be remembered that it is forecast in the bill that the fully functional system to maintain the register come into being as of the fall of 1997. That means that we have from now until the fall of 1997 to study the databases, about which we already have an idea because many databases have been provided to us. As well, we have from now until the fall of 1997 to finalize the contract which is out for tender right now. We are evaluating the bids and hoping to finalize that by early January. These are to be contracts with the private sector to devise the systems and program software that will take that data, which is all computer-based in the provinces, and make it compatible with what is in place at the federal level.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not the question, Mr. Kingsley. I am surprised to hear that you are asking for bids on systems for a program which has yet to be approved by Parliament. I find that rather presumptuous.

Mr. Kingsley: Pardon me, senator.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Did I understand you to say that you are asking for bids from the private sector to develop programs and to implement this?

Mr. Kingsley: There is a specific clause in the bid -- and I knew you would be asking the question -- which says that if Bill C-63 does not come into being, the bid falls.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That still surprises me. However, I am not surprised by what is going on in this government.

How can you convince us that the firm agreements you need to allow a proper and accurate revision to be made under this bill can be in place for the fall of 1997, for example, when the whole thing kicks in?

Mr. Kingsley: Senator, I have attempted to answer that question to the best of my ability right now.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, you have not.

Mr. Kingsley: To the best of my ability, I have, yes.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You have said that you have had good conversations, positive exchanges and certain commitments. I am saying: Will Quebec be on side by September or October 1997? Will Ontario be on side? Will all the details be put in place to allow the revision process to proceed as intended? We are not faulting the idea of a permanent voters list. On the contrary, we support it. What concerns us is that the revision to that list may be faulted or handicapped by the fact that the jurisdictions that are asked to collaborate with it will not all be there. How do you offset that?

Mr. Kingsley: I attempted to answer the question as best as I understood it, sir. I have the confidence through the commitments that have been made directly to me --

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you have any commitments in writing that you can table here from the chief electoral officer or the minister responsible in a particular province to the effect that, yes, as soon as your bill is in place, you can count on us that everything will be taken care of?

Mr. Kingsley: That can be tabled with this committee. I have a letter from the chief electoral officer of British Columbia. There is the testimony from the chief electoral officer of Quebec wherein this is clearly stated. It is part of the public regard now.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are all the agreements to be made at that level or will there be political input? Is not ministerial approval essential in some of these cases or will all of the agreements be between experts on all sides?

Mr. Kingsley: The minister appeared yesterday and told you about the political commitment that he had obtained through his exchanges.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: He repeated what you said, that is, he has received some good feedback but he has nothing in writing to show us.

I am taking too much time, Madam Chair, on this particular area.

The Chair: Your questions are quite in order, senator. Continue, please.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not want to take away time from others unless you think we are coming back.

The Chair: We are trying to negotiate something as you speak.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: As far as I am concerned, the missing element is that we are being asked to support something which we feel has a great deal of good to it, but in order to implement it there are too many pieces missing to do it at this time. Why this rush? Why not have this measure come into effect in April 1998? Why does it have to be April 1997? Why is there this rush?

Mr. Kingsley: I will answer this way, Madam Chair. I am working on the basis of predetermined work programs which we can also share with this committee. They indicate how every day will be utilized to implement this measure. Even though we will be exceedingly busy, personally, I do not feel that we are being rushed in any way, shape or form. If that were not the case, I could not have acquiesced to the time frames contained in this bill. If I felt anything to the contrary, I would be the first one to tell you that as your Chief Electoral Officer. I am an officer of Parliament.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The government has decided that it wants the thing to go into effect and that the last list be done on the old basis in April. You have to cope with that; I wish you well.

It would seem to me that if we change that to a later date, it would give you much more time to put the whole system into effect. In that way, you could get the agreements and have the thing explained with all the time needed to your colleagues in the other provinces and territories. Then, come a certain time when everything is in place, we could go ahead with the permanent list. We seem to be going in reverse. We have the thing in place but we cannot get it going. We do not know whether we will get it going in time. That is what concerns us.

Senator Gigantès: Assuming that you want the process to be completed and functioning by the autumn of 1997, you would not be able to do that if you asked for bids after everything else is in place. It is only prudent to ask for bids earlier, is it not, with the understanding that if there is no political approval and it is not passed by Parliament, then the bids fall. Is that right?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The same applies to agreements. You can sign them before a bill is passed.

Senator Gigantès: Is it not always a bit of an egg-and-chicken proposition? You have to have something in place to get something else in place. Is that not the way things are done rather than have everything cast in stone before we move?

Mr. Kingsley: I think I alluded to this earlier. I also want to do it in a way that is clear to the committee. Where jurisdictions felt at ease in signing things with us, we went ahead and did that. That is why we are proceeding with the Ontario department responsible for motor vehicles during the course of the next few weeks. This has been in the works and it will come to fruition. If Bill C-63 does not pass, the agreement will fall.

In terms of bids -- I have been around for over six years. We had to deal with the referendum legislation. We had to deal with massive changes to Bill C-114. In both cases, after the laws were passed, we were able to put out a notice within a matter of two months stating that the legislation was ready for implementation.

The only way we were able to do that was to plan in anticipation of program delivery without incurring any expenditures.

Senator Gigantès: If you had not done that, you would not have been able to do in the previous cases what you actually did.

Mr. Kingsley: In my view, we would not, no.

Senator Gigantès: If you had not acted in the previous cases the way you are acting now, you would not have had those past successes.

Mr. Kingsley: No.

Senator Bryden: As an officer of Parliament and the person in the organization responsible for this most central aspect of our democracy, is it your view that you are satisfied that you can implement the proposals that are there and to keep the list up to date for the purposes of conducting any electoral event if the bill passes within the time frames that you have indicated?

Mr. Kingsley: I wish to assure all parliamentarians in this house and in the Senate that if ever there were a government bill that proposed something that I could not implement, I would say so and I would say so publicly at a committee hearing like this.

Obviously, the time frames contained in that bill are time frames that I can meet as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. That is based on my whole career, not just at Elections Canada which is already seven years now.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you mean that you are confident that you will get the agreements that you have not reached so far?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, sir, I am.

Senator Gigantès: You built a whole hospital, did you not?

Mr. Kingsley: It was on time and under budget.

The Chair: I want to alert senators that I am trying to negotiate with the whips to meet back in this room this afternoon at 4 o'clock while the Senate is sitting. If you hear anything in the house to that effect, you will know what it is based on.

Senator Milne: Mr. Kingsley, perhaps to partially allay Senator Lynch-Staunton's concerns, is it not so that if you do an enumeration come next April, that enumeration would still be good until a year from April, for another 12 months, as is the case under the existing system? Under the existing system, it would be good for 12 months. It would be within the 80 per cent accuracy range.

Even if some of these agreements are delayed to some extent, we are still no worse off than the last election list for a year and a half.

Mr. Kingsley: One must remember the testimony provided by Ms Charles to that effect as well. Yes, there is a reliability factor which is supposed to be higher than that. We clearly demonstrated in 1993 that without touching a list at all, even with knowledge that we had because we were not authorized by law, we were able to carry out a general election. Quebec was an exception because we did not have the Quebec lists on computers. The Chief Electoral Officer had not computerized his list then. For three-quarters of Canada, we were able to do it.

I should mention that the acceptance or the comfort level that we have established was based on the 1993 general election. We felt that this was something that people would recognize as acceptable.

I understand there were some comments about anecdotal references having been made, but I am not aware, other than Mr. Milliken's conceptual preoccupations, of any other party or any candidate calling me. I even verified that this morning. At the debriefing of all our returning officers, this was not brought forward as an issue.

I thought that establishing the comfort level at the same level as the 1993 lists became then a reasonable exercise which people would accept.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Regarding Quebec -- you have twice referred to the availability of the list -- a computerized list of electors is in fact available and was used at the time of the referendum.

Mr. Kingsley: The list of electors was automated around the time of the referendum in Quebec. No such list existed in 1992 and 1993.

Senator Nolin: I understand that, but the list is now available.

Mr. Kingsley: Pardon me, a computerized list is currently available.

Senator Nolin: That is correct.

Mr. Kingsley: The chief electoral officer has indicated that he is in the process of producing a permanent list. However, a permanent list does not yet exist, merely an automated one. He is in the process of developing updating mechanisms with partners in the health care field.

Senator Nolin: However, the basic list is available.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Nolin: And the legislative provisions are in place to assist him in this endeavour.

Mr. Kingsley: The legislative provisions are in place to allow him to move forward and update the list retroactively. This is nonetheless a formidable task, considering the number of moves that have occurred in the past year-and-a-half. Given the current timetable, he believes the list will be available in May of 1997.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Côté will be here on Thursday for you to ask specific questions of him.

Senator Milne: Mr. Kingsley, did I hear you correctly to say that, at any time, someone can direct that their name "and" address or did you say their name "or" address can be deleted from the list?

Mr. Kingsley: The name and address can be deleted.

Senator Milne: I was somewhat concerned, as I mentioned yesterday, about women in shelters who are attempting to keep their names off any lists whatsoever so they cannot be found.

Mr. Kingsley: There are several mechanisms whereby they can achieve that. If they somehow get on the register, they can get off the register without having their right to vote affected. When they go in to be registered on polling day, whether it is an advance poll or a regular poll, they can stipulate that they do not want to be on the list; so their right to vote will not be affected. That will be respected.

Senator Milne: You anticipate municipalities and school boards eventually using these lists. I do not really see how these lists could be relevant to them. Municipalities have no requirement for citizenship on their voters lists. In some school boards, there is a definite requirement for a person's religion to be known. I do not see these lists as potential money-makers for you in the future, whatsoever. Provinces may want them, but I am not sure about municipalities and school boards.

Mr. Kingsley: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities strongly endorsed this project because they understood that if you have it computerized and if you have 95 per cent of the electorate or 95 per cent of the addresses where electors live, then it becomes an important tool that can save you a lot of money in your own efforts to register electors.

Senator Milne: Electors are defined differently in municipalities and school boards than they are federally and provincially.

Mr. Kingsley: I agree, but I am still saying that there is value there. I met personally with the Big City Mayors caucus. They were most interested because they see an opportunity. Eventually, they may find a way of utilizing our data and supplementing it with the additional data they need. That will be their challenge, but it is there as a possibility.

The Chair: That varies from province to province, Senator Milne. Certainly in Manitoba, you would find lists to be extremely compatible one with the other because of our particular rules on school boards and municipalities. That is a side comment.

Senator Murray: Mr. Kingsley, there are two issues I wish to cover. I am quite confident I can cover at least one of them in the time remaining. The first one has to do with the enfranchisement of Canadian religious missionaries who are posted abroad.

Yesterday, when Mr. Gray was here, I derived some hope and encouragement from him on this matter. I thought that he was hinting quite strongly at what, with great respect to the legal advisors, I would consider a sensible interpretation of the act. Here is the situation.

Forty years ago, I might have gone to Geneva or Paris and been hired on the staff of the World Health Organization or the Food and Agricultural Organization or the OECD. I might have stayed there all these years, never set foot back in Canada. However, I would still be entitled to vote in federal elections by reason of the fact that employees of international organizations to which Canada belongs are designated specifically as having the right to vote.

Missionaries are not so designated. Although they are sent abroad from a church or religious organization, a congregation of some kind in Canada, and although they may have homes here and come back every year or two years for weeks or months, a few months to visit their family or to go back to their congregation, and although they qualify under the provision that they intend to return here, eventually to reside, if they are out of Canada for more than five years, consecutively, they are disqualified.

I was toying with the idea of bringing an amendment to designate them. I have someone working on that now. That would not be necessary if you and your legal advisors would put some meat on the bones of Mr. Gray's instinctive response of yesterday. You can do that off the cuff, Mr. Girard, if you wish, or you can write us a letter.

If you think that, as Mr. Gray suggested, they are already qualified to vote; that they are not in a situation where they are prevented from voting -- I am inviting you to give me a legal opinion which will save me the trouble of bringing an amendment on this point.

Senator Nolin: They are still abroad.

The Chair: He wants to be convinced.

Mr. Kingsley: I understood the purport of the question. First, I would like to have a chance between this meeting and the next one to review the matter in more detail with Mr. Girard. In the meantime, I do wish to ensure that committee members appreciate what happened under Bill C-114.

Elections Canada was at the table during the in camera sessions with the committee of the House of Commons when it was considering this, the Hawkes committee, and it was Senator Prud'homme who raised that very same point about missionaries. The committee had an opportunity to deliberate.

Senator Prud'homme: I was then a member of the House.

Mr. Kingsley: Right. The committee then had an opportunity to deliberate specifically concerning missionaries. It was the majority view of that committee that they were not to be excluded from the five-year limit, that it was deliberate what they were doing about diplomats and others.

I felt it my duty to share there with you. The matter was considered specifically by that committee.

Senator Prud'homme: However, the matter was not rejected.

Mr. Kingsley: Just so that you know, I will come back whenever we reconvene and I will provide an answer on the other aspect of that question, sir.

Senator Pearson: I was one of those diplomats who had been excluded and then got a vote, but I also paid taxes in Canada, et cetera. If you open up the question to missionaries, why not to aid workers, why not to every Canadian abroad? It seems to me that that is a completely separate question, one which would require a new bill that included all Canadians, as the Americans do.

Senator Murray: Aid workers might be covered, depending upon who they are working for.

Senator Pearson: The definition of missionary, let us not get into that.

Mr. Kingsley: I think we are back to the deliberations of Bill C-114.

Senator Bryden: Could you just tell us on what basis in your recollection the committee decided not to try to include missionaries when you were deliberating on Bill C-114?

Mr. Kingsley: In accordance with a discussion I had this morning with my people in that respect, after they had a chance to review some of the documents they had in their possession regarding those deliberations, I think part of it had to do with the definition of a missionary. We have a traditional view, but that is because we may have traditional churches in mind. The definition of missionary was part of the deliberations.

The other matter discussed related to the difference between a missionary and an aid worker, someone who is going out on behalf of missionary institutions outside the country. Also, what if someone has been out of the country for 35 years? How relevant is their knowledge about what is going on?

Senator Murray: That applies to the FAO or WHO.

Mr. Kingsley: Please keep in mind that I am only answering the question. I am not signifying agreement or disagreement here, because I have not been asked if I agree or disagree with anything.

Senator Beaudoin: Section 3 of the charter says that every eligible citizen of Canada has the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. We have to have a good reason to remove the right to vote from a citizen of this country. The tendency, since 1982, has been to give the right to vote to many persons who were excluded.

Senator Murray: Including prisoners.

Senator Beaudoin: I am surprised by this debate. We cannot make distinctions between citizens. Whether a citizen is a missionary or a diplomat, it does not matter -- as long as that person is a Canadian citizens, he or she should have the right to vote.

I agree that some exceptions are in agreement with section 1 in a free and democratic society. For example, the Chief Electoral Officer, if I am not mistaken, does not vote.

Mr. Kingsley: That is right.

Senator Beaudoin: In some provinces, he or she does. In my opinion, each time there is an exception, it is quite debatable.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes. The point is well taken, senator. I am sure it was part of the consideration. That is why five years was arrived at. You are proposing to say: Does five years apply? Is five years a reasonable limit? That is another issue.

Senator Beaudoin: If you apply it to a diplomat, why not to a missionary? Section 15 says that we are all equal before the law.

Senator Prud'homme: I followed the debate for 30 years. I know what Senator Beaudoin says is absolutely true, except that we made exceptions. The difference is that there are 2 million Canadians in the United States who could claim to be Canadians. We agonized for months on this question.

I was opposed to signing a blank cheque; I was against it. I lost that debate. We decided that they had to show intention of returning to Canada. By writing a future intention of coming back, they could be allowed to vote.

There are many Canadian citizens abroad whose intention it is to remain Canadian. Missionaries are among our greatest diplomats. They have a great interest in Canada; but they cannot vote. They have told us time and again that they would like to be eligible to vote. They have an interest in Canada, but their duty is abroad. They have a domicile in Canada more than someone who is retired in California or Florida. I think something can be done about that. If it is not done, a private member's bill from the Senate could do the job.

Senator Murray: We could do it through an amendment to this bill.

The Chair: Honourable senators, I will adjourn this session, by agreement.

The committee adjourned.

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 10, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act, met this day at 4:08 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, we will continue with our deliberations on Bill C-63 with the same three witnesses whom we heard earlier today.

Unless anyone has an objection, I will ask Mr. Peter Grant, Broadcast Arbitrator, who was scheduled to appear before us tomorrow, to join us at the table. Seeing no objections, I welcome Mr. Grant.

Mr. Kingsley will begin with a few remarks.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am always grateful for the opportunity to talk to honourable senators about what is going on with the Elections Act. In fact, I would be happy to appear before you even more often to share with you our plans at Elections Canada.

Let me say that my purpose in appearing before a Senate committee is not to defend or to offend a particular statute or proposal, but to answer factually, as best I can, all of the questions put to me. I assure you that that is what I intend to continue to do.

Senator Murray: Madam Chair, before the lunch break I had raised the question of enfranchisement of Canadian missionaries, and Mr. Kingsley agreed to come back with a statement on the position of Elections Canada on this matter. I invite him to do so now.

Mr. Kingsley: Very briefly, section 51.1 of the statute states:

Any of the following persons may vote in accordance with Schedule II, namely:

(d) a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident;

We have interpreted that literally at Elections Canada so far. It may be possible -- and I wish to be very clear that we have not had a final legal determination of this -- to include any Canadian who returns to Canada for whatever length of time. However, if they have not returned to Canada for five consecutive years, then the right to vote, in accordance with the statute as it is now written, must be removed. I have no choice on the matter. That is clear.

Senator Gigantès: What about section 3 of the charter?

Mr. Kingsley: I want to make it clear that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada cannot make a judgment as to whether a section of the statute is in accordance with the charter. I have no right to do that. Otherwise, you would really be concerned with your Chief Electoral Officer.

The Chair: Could I get some clarification on this? Are you saying that it might be possible for, let us say, a missionary in South Africa to come home, spend a period of one month at his missionary house in Canada, and use that as the beginning of another five-year absentee period from Canada?

Mr. Kingsley: After preliminary review, which occurred between two o'clock and four o'clock this afternoon, I am saying that that is something that we think we can consider positively.

Senator Murray: Of course, the person in question would also have to intend to return here eventually at the end of his missionary labours. I think we have made some progress on this matter. The man who wrote to Ms Jan Brown, MP, who brought the matter up in the House of Commons -- and I think I can use his name because she did so in the House of Commons -- the Reverend Brian Rude, is a missionary in El Salvador. As it happens, I saw a copy of a letter that he had written to Ms Brown, in the course of which he said, "I have property in your riding, and more than that, I was back for three or four months last summer," et cetera. He had written to Elections Canada and had heard back from Marc Douville who said that on the basis of the facts that he had, Reverend Rude was not eligible. I think we are making some headway on this matter. Perhaps I will not have to propose an amendment at all.

Could your legal advisor draft something for us on this matter?

Mr. Kingsley: In terms of an interpretation as I have just described it?

Senator Murray: Yes. I am a bit beyond my depth here, but I think it was clear on the record that this would be the way that Elections Canada would interpret this section: On the basis of a set of facts like this, we would close the book and move on.

Mr. Kingsley: I will take that under advisement in the sense that we have provided a preliminary view based on two hours of review of the matter. We will consider it, and come back to you very quickly.

Senator Murray: That would be helpful.

Senator Bryden: After your consideration, if someone says that your interpretation is too broad, it then would be up to that person to challenge it.

Mr. Kingsley: That is how it would be. They can seek a court injunction against my interpretation.

Senator Bryden: It would seem to me that that would be a fairly difficult stance for anyone to take. One would be saying, "No, we do not want this person to have the right to vote." It would seem to me that that would be an untenable position for a political organizer or whoever to take in most instances. That interpretation, if it is broad enough, makes good sense to me.

Senator Pearson: It would not be limited to missionaries; it would apply to any Canadian.

Mr. Kingsley: It would apply to any Canadian.

Senator Gigantès: Is there not a five-year limit on naturalized Canadians who leave the country?

The Chair: Not if they have become Canadian citizens. There is a limit for a landed immigrant, Senator Gigantès.

Senator Beaudoin: I agree with you, Mr. Kingsley, that you have to apply the law as it is, but, of course, you have a great discretion. If you, as Chief Electoral Officer, interpret a particular statute in a particular way, while your interpretation certainly may be challenged, you have the absolute right to say, "This is the way we interpret the statute in our department." I do not see anything wrong with that.

Obviously, if you are convinced that one article is debatable and may contravene section 3 of the charter, there is nothing you can do except to report what you think about it. Your interpretation is always there because, from the way I read the Canada Elections Act, the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer is very broad. As a matter of fact, you have even an emergency power in some circumstances. I just want to say that for the record that, while I agree with you, that you cannot change the law, you do have a certain power of interpretation which, of course, is subject to interpretation by the courts.

Senator Murray: Madam Chair, I am happy that Mr. Grant is at the table today because I have some questions as to how the proposed regime, with regard to the allocation of broadcast time and so forth, will work. This is really what I want to discuss. I hope I can do so succinctly because it is rather complex. I have written out a lot of material here that I will try to get through quickly.

Sections 307, 310 and 311, I believe, of the current act provide that every broadcaster has to come up with 6.5 hours of broadcast time for the benefit of the registered political parties over a 28-day period. This broadcast time is allocated among the different parties according to a mathematical formula in the act. For example, in the current situation the Liberal Party would have 126 minutes, the Reform Party would have 54 minutes, and the Conservatives would have 36 minutes.

If any party does not buy its full allocation, what is left over can be made available to other parties on a proportionate basis.

However, the amount of time allocated to each political party has normally been the maximum that that party can purchase. Is that correct? That was the case in 1993.

Mr. Peter S. Grant, The Broadcasting Arbitrator: Prior to the Reform Party decision, yes.

Senator Murray: I will come to that.

The process was that the parties would have to present the notice of their broadcast plans -- that is, what commercial times they wanted to buy and how a party wanted to use the broadcast time allocated to it -- to the broadcasters and the networks within 10 days of a writ being issued for an election. After that was done, the broadcaster had three days to respond to the party regarding the party's wish list and another three days were provided for negotiations between the broadcaster and the party. Failing an agreement, section 315(3) would be invoked and you, the Broadcast Arbitrator, would make a decision forthwith. I will return to this later because I think it is important

Under what I call the old regime -- that is, under the present act -- this all had to be settled within a maximum of 16 days from the date on which the writ was issued. If a maximum of 10 days was allowed for a party to put in its notice, three days for the broadcaster to respond, three days for negotiation and then the arbitration, if required, that comes to about 16 days. It all had to be settled before the blackout was lifted. In a 47-day writ, with 28 days allowed for broadcast, the blackout was lifted on day 19. Is that right? On the 19th day after the issuance of the writ, under a 47-day writ, the blackout was lifted. I will come back to that because it is an important point in terms of what you are proposing in the new regime.

The legislative scheme in the Canada Elections Act sought to limit the amount of time that would be available for broadcast advertising. It sought to ensure that the time was allocated fairly among the parties, and it sought to provide for arbitration of conflicts. The allocation of time was key to this legislative framework.

We now come to the Reform Party case that went to the courts. This regime was enforced by sections 319(c) and 320, which made it an offence for a broadcaster to sell more time to a party than the allocation that had been made under the act. A broadcaster could not sell and a party could not buy more time than was allocated under the act.

In the Reform Party case, the Alberta Court of Appeal, on March 10, 1995, struck down the offence provisions, 319(c) and 320. I am asking one of you to confirm that the 6.5 hours provided for under the act to be allocated among the parties is no longer a maximum. Is that correct?

Mr. Grant: You are absolutely right. The 6.5 hours is no longer a cap. However, the 6.5 hours continues to be a minimum entitlement at the lowest commercial rates for prime time. There could well be stations that would not be prepared to make any time available over and above what they must make available under the statute. It is up to the stations to decide whether to sell time in excess of that .

Senator Murray: I appreciate that. The 6.5 hours and the allocation thereof becomes a minimum, not a maximum. But in striking down the offence provisions, the court has knowingly created a situation in which there is no limit to the amount of time that can be sold by any broadcaster or bought by any party. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. Grant: No. This would still be subject to the election expenses.

Senator Murray: The overall election expenses but, if you wanted to spend all your money on broadcast advertising, you could do so, as matters now stand.

Mr. Grant: Yes.

Senator Murray: The relevance of the time allocation is that, instead of a maximum, it is a basic minimum entitlement.

Mr. Grant: Yes. One other implication remains in the act for the allocation of the paid time.

Senator Murray: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Grant: That is used for allocating free time.

Senator Murray: I appreciate that point, too.

When the parties file their broadcast advertising plans for the next election, will these plans relate only to the 6.5 hours that have been divided among them under the formula or will their plans relate to all the time that they wish to buy, including any time they may wish to buy in excess of their allocation, since they are not limited to the allocation? What will the rule be?

Mr. Grant: They are free to request from the stations more time than I have allocated to them out of the 6.5 hours. If they wanted to develop a comprehensive plan to put to the stations, they would be free to do so, but a station would not be obliged by law to furnish them more than the amount that has been allocated to them under the formula. It would be up to the station to decide whether it had excess time to sell and at what price it would sell it.

I do not think anything precludes a party from putting it all together in one request but, as a matter of law, they would not have an entitlement except with respect to the minutes that are allocated to them under the act.

Senator Murray: Thank you.

Could you tell us for the record what provisions of what act would prevent a broadcaster from playing favourites with regard to excess time? The broadcaster is obliged to make available 36 minutes to the Conservative Party -- and perhaps I should refer to party "A" and party "B", but you get the sense of my question. If it is entirely up to the broadcaster, is there some fairness doctrine in the Broadcasting Act, or in any other act, to prevent a broadcaster from making more time available to a party which he supports and not to another party which he does not support?

Mr. Grant: You almost addressed that in your reference to the Broadcasting Act. As far as time beyond the time allocated under the Canada Elections Act is concerned, the only discipline on broadcasters would come from the Broadcasting Act.

Under this proposed amendment, the CRTC would be required to issue guidelines to broadcasters within two days.

They have done so in each election. They have wrestled from time to time with what I will call a general principle of affording equity, which is often not defined much more precisely than that.

However, the commission has established that broadcasters have an obligation to treat political parties equitably. It has also said that, if stations in exercising their discretion were to utilize the allocation levels that I had set, the commission would find that acceptable. I imagine that the commission might also find other approaches acceptable.

Senator Murray: Do you mean with regard to the excess time?

Mr. Grant: Yes. I believe, however, that a station would have to prove to the CRTC that its practices were equitable.

Senator Murray: Does your role now as Broadcasting Arbitrator relate only to the 6.5 hours that will be divided up by you under the act, or do you say that you have the authority to arbitrate requests from the parties for time in excess of the 6.5 hours?

Mr. Grant: No. I take the view that I would only have jurisdiction over the 6.5 hours.

Senator Murray: In respect of any party which has put its entire wish list in, you will have to cut off at some point and say, "No, I can only arbitrate in respect of the time which has been allotted to you."

Mr. Grant: I can only order a station to carry time.

Senator Murray: This could be rather complex if, as you suggested, they put in their entire wish list. If they want to purchase more time than they have been allocated and they include it all in the same document, you could have a difficult time if you were called upon to arbitrate.

Mr. Grant: That is right. However, I suppose I would just look at the allocation. If a party has been allocated 36 minutes, but they have asked for 48 minutes, and the station comes back and says, "I am afraid we can only give you 32 minutes," I will order the station to give the party 36 minutes; there is no question about that. I do not think I would have the jurisdiction to order the station to give more.

Senator Murray: I would think you would be called upon to arbitrate not so much on the question of a station refusing to sell a party its full allocation as in respect of what time of day, for example, the party wanted its announcements.

Mr. Grant: That is right. If they want a minute on the Seinfeld show and they are pushed into Canada AM, I will tell the station to put it on Seinfeld.

Senator Murray: I watch the latter, but not the former.

What is your position with regard to the lowest rate, Mr. Grant? Section 321(a) requires broadcasters to charge the parties their lowest prime time rate for the purchase of allocated time, whatever that may be. As I understand it, it is a rather arbitrary call on the part of the stations as to what their lowest rate is. At any rate, they are required to charge the lowest rate. Is it your position that this rate applies to the 6.5 hours provided for under the bill, or will it also apply to any time in excess of a party's allocation?

Mr. Grant: My thinking is that it would apply only to the 6.5 hours. If a station were to be inequitable in terms of its rate for excess time, it would have to defend its actions before the CRTC, as a general matter of equity.

Senator Murray: I used to know something about the way these rate cards operate. Once you are over the 6.5 hours, a station would be quite within its rights to say, "Look, we charge a low rate to advertisers who sign a contract to advertise with us over a longer period. We are talking here about a few spots over a 28-day period. We will charge you the full rate."

Mr. Grant: Three years ago the CRTC changed its criteria for television. For the first time, it decided to categorize political advertising as non-commercial time. That was a real windfall for broadcast stations. The general rule is that you cannot run more than 12 minutes of commercial time per hour. If you were forced by this system to drop in political ads, then you would preempt commercial time.

I understand that, when the stations receive requests for political advertising, they will do their utmost try to run that advertising in place of program time rather than ad time so that they do not diminish their overall revenue but, in fact, increase it.

Senator Murray: With regard to the blackout, the key decision that has been made by the framers of this bill is that there will be 28 days of broadcasting permitted in both a 47-day writ and a 36-day writ. The blackout in the 36-day writ will be lifted after the eighth day.

My question is directed to Mr. Kingsley and his legal advisors, although I am quite happy to have any free legal advice on the point from anyone. How do you know that the blackout, provisions for which are contained in section 48 of the act, is constitutional? Section 213, which governed the blackout on third parties, was struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Sommerville case in June 1996.

If you have the act in front of you, you will see that sections 48 and 213 are not all that different. Section 213, which relates to third parties, was struck down; section 48 refers to the political parties. We are now in a situation where section 213 has been struck down and for at least eight or nine days third parties -- interest groups, advocacy groups, whoever -- can be pounding the Dickens out of the political parties on the air without restriction. The political parties cannot respond with advertising until day eight, if they are lucky enough to have all their ducks in order and are able to get air time.

If section 213 is unconstitutional, how do you know that section 48 is constitutional?

Mr. Jacques Girard, Director of Legal Services, Elections Canada: It is difficult, obviously, to determine whether a provision in the legislation is constitutional. What I do know from being in charge of applying the legislation is that there is a presumption of constitutionality. Until such time as this section is declared unconstitutional, it is deemed to be constitutional. That is the way we have applied it, and that is the way the broadcaster will apply it.

At some time in the future a court may decide that, since section 213 was declared unconstitutional, section 48 is unconstitutional as well.

Senator Murray: I appreciate that. I do not know what could have been done, but I am sure something could have been done by the government since the Sommerville judgment to provide some certainty here. All it will take in the middle of the next election is for a willing party and a willing broadcaster to say, "We will not sit here and have the National Citizens' Coalition, Bob White or whoever buying time and attacking us. We do not think this provision is constitutional anyway. We will buy an ad. Will you sell us an ad?" "Yes," and then we will be on the air, and then we will be into court immediately.

Senator Gigantès: Is that what the Tories are planning to do?

Senator Murray: It just occurred to me, as a matter of fact.

Senator Gigantès: Senator Tkachuk is shaking his head in assent very energetically.

Senator Murray: There is a further blackout which relates to broadcast time only, and that is that a party cannot get on the air until at least five days have elapsed from the filing of its plan. That is a blackout within a blackout.

Under the new proposals, from the day the writ is issued, the party will have 10 days to file its plan, as under the present act. Broadcasters will have two days to respond. There will be two days to negotiate, and, failing an agreement, the arbitrator will decide forthwith.

Here is my problem. Party A files its plan on the day after the writ is issued. The broadcasters approve it right away, so there is no problem, no need for any protracted negotiation, no need for any arbitration. The plan is approved, and Party A goes on the air on the day the blackout is lifted.

Party B does not get its act together for a few days and does not file its plan until day five or six. The broadcaster takes, for whatever reason, the full two days to respond to Party B's plan and then uses a full two days to negotiate; there is no agreement, and it goes on to the arbitrator and the arbitrator decides forthwith. In that case, Party B does not get on the air until day 11 or 12.

The problem does not arise under the present act, as I indicated earlier, because all this is settled before the blackout is lifted. Here the blackout is lifted on day 8, and you have 10 days to file your plan. It seems to me that we have a problem if Party A is on the air for four or five days and Party B is still tied up in arbitration.

Mr. Grant: You have identified an issue which I think must be carefully understood by the parties, senator, although I would describe it a little differently.

We have here a bill which gives a party the ability to delay up to 10 days in making its request for air time. However, the party would do so at a cost because it would have largely foreclosed its abilities to place its ads in week one of the four-week broadcast campaign. There is no problem in weeks two, three and four. If they waited for 10 days to file their plan for weeks two, three and four, there would still be the five-day period when all the elements you have suggested would come into play, and I could arbitrate it. There would not be a problem for weeks two, three and four. Week one in the campaign, though, as you have pointed out, does overlap because they have accelerated the time at the front end but have kept the four-week advertising period.

Parties must be aware that, if they want to buy time in week one of the campaign, particularly early in week one, they should get their order in as soon as they can after the writ is dropped. If they get it all in within two or three days of the writ, then all the time they want in week one will be available to them, and I can so order. For every day that they delay, though, they risk losing time in week one. If they wait for the full 10 days to place their whole order, then they will have time only in weeks two, three and four.

I propose to make the parties aware of this issue which could develop if Bill C-63 were passed. It would probably make sense for a party to split its requests and to put in an order immediately for any time they want in week one and then perhaps take a little more time to think about what they need for weeks two, three and four. This issue must be brought to attention of parties; otherwise, the race is to the swift.

Senator Murray: I think we have a problem here, Mr. Grant. I have not had that much hands-on experience with this particular issue, but I do not think it would be enough for a party to get its wish list in for week one.

The issue is not really week one; the issue is the entire plan. Surely the role of the broadcast arbitrator is not only to arbitrate a conflict between a party and a broadcaster, but also conflicts among parties and among broadcasters.

It would not be enough for you to deal only with week one. If you were in a situation where you had to arbitrate between conflicting demands of several parties and the interests or responses of the broadcasters, to arbitrate effectively you would not be dealing with just that one day or hour that was in conflict. Surely you would want to reach a satisfactory resolution in the light of the overall plan that the parties had put before you.

Mr. Grant: In practice, senator, I have never had to issue an order to a broadcaster. The most that has happened is that a party has called me on the phone and said that they were unhappy with a particular response. Generally, I would call the broadcaster immediately and say, "See if you can make them happy." Without exception, the problem goes away.

Senator Murray: That is a case where there is a conflict between a party and a broadcaster.

Mr. Grant: That is almost always the only scenario that occurs, because a party would not necessarily know what the other parties had requested, and a broadcaster may not share that information.

Senator Murray: There is at least a potential scenario where two parties would be in conflict for a given set of time slots and you would have to arbitrate between the two parties and then between the parties and the broadcaster.

Mr. Grant: My position on that would be clear. If a station came to me and said, "Look, we are being asked for some minutes in this particular high-profile time slot, and we have already committed to one party. We simply do not have more time," my position would be that the station should give the second party equivalent time. That decision may not make that station happy, but it seems to me that there are ways to give equivalent time in prime time. Frankly, I would tell the station that it had an obligation to give equivalent prime-time access, not necessarily in the particular time slot that is being sought but in prime time either on the same day or on the next day which would give essentially the same demographics. That is what I would look to to give them equivalent time.

Senator Bryden: Your solution would be to say, "Give the competing party who came in late with the request equivalent time," but not to say, "Take the time that you have given to this party and cut it in half and give half of it to the other." Is that correct? I am not suggesting that you do this.

Mr. Grant: They are both entitled to the minutes they have requested and they are both entitled to it in roughly the hour they have requested, so I would do my utmost to give it to them and to order the station to do so.

Senator Murray: I have some difficulty with the notion in this case that the race should be to the swift and that it should be "first come, first served." The act allows for 10 days.

The complicating factor in Bill C-63 is that the blackout is lifted. Some parties will be on the air while others are still in arbitration. That cannot happen under the present act. It seems to me that there are various ways we could go about this, but the key thing would be to reduce the 10 days.

In the original version of Bill C-63, the parties were given three days to submit their plans. I do not know who complained, but the minister or the House of Commons committee, in their wisdom, decided that three days was too short a time.

Mr. Grant: I can take credit for that, senator. I thought it was unfair that the smaller parties be required to get their act together within the three days. I felt it would be better to have a rolling period where they could take up to 10 days. There would be a cost to them in that they would lose an opportunity in week one, so there is a real advantage to being prepared. However, I felt uncomfortable with a bill that would cut them off if they did not have their request in within three days.

Senator Murray: I am troubled by the blackout being lifted before the whole matter of allocation and arbitration are settled. Why not suggest to the government that a couple more days be added to the blackout so that all these issues could be resolved before the blackout ended and before broadcasting began?

Have you considered that?

Mr. Grant: You could approach it on that basis, senator. However, that would shorten the broadcast period from four weeks to some shorter period.

Senator Murray: We have shortened the campaign period from 47 days to 36 days, but we have left the advertising time at 28 days. Arguably, we could knock a couple of days off the broadcast time. That would be one way of going about it.

You are the one who thought that three days was too short a period. Why did you push it to ten days? Why not five days?

Mr. Grant: Ten days is the time allowed in the act.

Senator Murray: That is in the present act. Why did you not saw it off at five? I am told, largely from my own party, that most parties are able to cope with that.

Your concern was likely for new parties or smaller parties, and that is a commendable concern. However, in most cases, an established party would have given the matter some thought, would have looked at their budget and would have consulted their media-buy experts.

Senator Gigantès: If they have not, they are not fit to govern in any event.

Mr. Grant: I think that is true. I know for a fact that both the governing party and the opposition party in the last election had their requests in within one day of the writ.

Senator Murray: They had a lot of time to plan for it in 1993.

Thank you. You have been very helpful in terms of where your role begins and ends, and so on. I will want to consider further what we might do to provide some greater certainty.

Senator Gigantès: It seems to me that, if we were going from a 60-day campaign to a 48-day campaign, similar problems would arise. People would be saying, "What is this? You are not giving us 15 days as you did before; you are only giving us 10." If we are to cut the period down to 36 days -- and the public seems to think it is a good thing and it is also better for the political parties -- obviously, something must be compressed. The idea that a serious political party would not have a broadcast plan and would not have thought out its budget as the election was approaching is a little farfetched. It is very difficult to believe.

The Chair: Is that a comment or a question?

Senator Gigantès: It is a question.

Mr. Grant: My role, senator, was to provide some equity as between the larger parties and the smaller parties. Many of the smaller parties do not have the preparation capacity that you describe.

Senator Gigantès: They also have smaller committees. The larger the party and the larger the committee, the greater the indecision and confusion.

Mr. Grant: I understand your point, senator.

[Translation]

Senator Prud'homme: Thank you. I will refer directly to page 7 of the bill where I note the following: "The date of birth of every elector at the residence." This is new, is it not?

Mr. Girard: Yes.

Senator Prud'homme: Why was it included? For those closely involved in the electoral process, this is going to lead to a lot of problems and questions. I am concerned that many people will refuse to register, particularly the more elderly.

Even though some may argue that a person must disclose his age in order to receive his Social Security cheque, this information is personal. People will not believe that the register will be confidential or that the list in circulation will not contain the person's age. The age will undoubtedly appear on some lists.

The parties will certainly have lists that give the elector's age. Someone will end up with this information because the register will be an incredible tool for all sorts of lobby groups, in spite of the claim that these lists will be used for electoral purposes only. My question is a very practical one. Why the need suddenly to know the age of electors?

Mr. Girard: If I may, I would like to answer Senator Prud'homme's question. Basically, the birth date will be used for one purpose only, that is to facilitate data matching. That is why this provision was included in the bill on third reading, with the unanimous consent, moreover, of all parties in the House of Commons.

Senator Prud'homme: I am not impressed since they will endorse anything in the House of Commons!

Mr. Girard: In some parts of the country, many people have the same name. Since we are both from Quebec, I will use as an example the Lac St-Jean region where the date of birth is an extremely important piece of information which helps us to keep track of an individual's whereabouts.

Quebec's experience in this area is quite interesting and you will undoubtedly have an opportunity to discuss this matter further with Mr. Côté when he appears before the committee on Thursday.

When, during the last enumeration, people were asked for their birth date, only a fraction of 1 per cent of the population refused to disclose this information.

It should be remembered, moreover, that a person does not have to divulge this information in order to vote. The Elections Act states, as it did in the past, that in order to vote, a person must be a Canadian citizen and be 18 years of age or over. For example, if you refused to disclose your date of birth to the enumerator, but claimed nevertheless to be over 18 years of age, your name would be put on the voters list. Again, the purpose of this exercise is to make it easier to match voters, that is to see if you are indeed the Mr. Prud'homme who moved from this address to that one.

Senator Prud'homme: Are you saying that a person could refuse to disclose his date of birth to the enumerator?

Mr. Girard: Yes. It was a question at all of --

Senator Prud'homme: Then why is this being made mandatory? If voters learn that they are not required to disclose this information, the news will spread like wildfire --

[English]

For those who know the political process, as soon as it is known that you do not have to give your age, I assure you that people will say: Why should you know my age?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: Again, there is no question of denying a person in Canada who refuses to disclose his birth date the right to vote. Let us make that very clear. What we need to know, again because this is stipulated in the legislation, is whether the person is over 18 years of age. And we can obtain this information with the current legislation. When the enumerators go door-to-door, they do not ask people whether they were born before or after 1968. They ask the question: "Are you 18 years of age or over?" This will continue to be the case. We are merely going to request this additional information.

In terms of sharing the information, there is no system in the world that can completely guarantee that there will be no fraud. Under the current legislation, the date of birth does not appear on any list that will be made available to parties and to candidates.

Once again, the sole reason for collecting this information is to keep track of electors when they move. Similarly, a person's sex will no longer appear on the lists made available to candidates and parties. Henceforth, this information will appear only on the lists used by election officials on voting days. At the end of the day, these lists are dropped into the ballot boxes which are then sealed.

Senator Prud'homme: How does a candidate go about contacting the voters?

[English]

Senator Milne will pay attention to that, I am sure. She is an organizer for the elections, as are others here. Age is still a problem for me. You say that you do not need to give it if you do not want to, but you are still on the list. I will try to reconcile.

Senator Murray: I thought they changed that at the House of Commons committee.

Senator Prud'homme: That is what I said. At page 7 it gives the date of birth of every elector at the residence.

Senator Murray: You do not have to get on the list at all, if you do not want to. However, if you want to be on the list, you have to give your date of birth.

Senator Bryden: With all due respect, that is not my understanding.

When making the enumeration list, it is my understanding from reading the bill that the enumerators confirm that the person is 18 years of age or over, a Canadian citizen and what their mailing and street address is. That entitles that person to be on the electoral list. At the same time, it is my understanding that they ask the question, "What is your date of birth?", which the person may answer or not, and then they note whether the person is male or female.

If they refuse to answer as to their date of birth, they still get on the list. If they provide the information, that information goes on the register of electors, which is held by the Chief Electoral Officer and is provided to the returning officer in the ridings. However, the lists which are provided from the returning officer to the candidates and to the political parties contains only the information that this person must provide, which is that this person is over 18, a Canadian citizen and lives in Canada.

Senator Murray: I am sure you are right about the last part; the officials can confirm that. However, as I read the act, the enumerator is required to find out the date of birth of every elector at the residence. Also, if you write to the Chief Electoral Officer to request that you be listed, you have to provide a signed certificate that you are a qualified elector, then your surname, given name, sex, date of birth, civic address and mailing address and satisfactory proof of identity.

The Chair: For clarity, section 67(1) has not been amended. There has been an addition which you are talking about, which is the age. However, the other one states:

Enumerator shall obtain electoral information by visiting each residence in the polling division or where circumstances warrant by any other method.

Section 67(2) states:

Enumerator shall determine whether a person is a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or over and shall try to obtain and record the following information on an enumeration record.

That is where the age has been added.

Senator Prud'homme: I do not know if I still have the floor. I tried for once to be very disciplined by writing my questions. I will continue.

In the Quebec list, you cannot appear as "Madam Gigantès," if such is your wish. You have to give your given name.

Are we going to ask people for their given names? In some provinces and in some rural places, not everyone who wants to play the violin of modern life; they are happy with the name they have used all their lives. Are we going to change that?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: The answer is clearly no. The federal government will not be doing anything differently. Enumerators will ask for your name and it is up to you to give it. They will not pass judgement on whether you use your parents' name or your grandparents' name. They will take down the name that you give them.

[English]

Senator Prud'homme: Assuming that you are going to buy the Quebec list, we will still have one census. Or, if we buy the Quebec list, there will be no census, if we were to make an agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: Right now, we could not use Quebec's electoral list to establish the register. However, we will be able to use it to update the register.

Senator Prud'homme: I understand that it is difficult for you to follow along with the interpretation because this is a very specific point that we are discussing. Nevertheless, I will continue to use the language with which I am more comfortable.

[English]

As you just said, you will have a federal list where at such and such an address it will say Madam Langlois and, Mr. Léon Langlois. When you come to check with the provincial list at that address, you will have Mr. Léon Langlois and Madam Pierrette Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: That is an excellent example of a situation where the birth date will be extremely important as a means of ensuring that Mrs. Langlois in Quebec and Mrs. Bellehumeur are indeed one and the same person.

[English]

Senator Prud'homme: You are right, but you are saying that, if the person does not want to give their age, they will still be on the list.

[Translation]

Why does the French version read 71.013(1)(2) whereas the English version reads 71.013(1)(2)a) b) c)? I realize that the French text is included, but elsewhere on page 16 --

[English]

If someone challenges me, I will invite them to look at page 16.

[Translation]

The exact opposite is stated on page 16.

Mr. Girard: The reason for this is the drafting rules in place at the Department of Justice. To begin with, this bill was drafted by justice department officials and we have no control over this process. For instance, we could eventually end up working on a bill called C-71.02, which may not be the best possible wording, except that is how things happen at present. I cannot answer your question. I can only tell you that this is how the justice department currently goes about drafting legislation.

Senator Prud'homme: I would have thought that the text should correspond in both official languages.

[English]

Do I have a point? If I do not, I will pass. People are watching during the day of the election, and someone says in French, "Why do you not go and see section 71.013," and the other says, "section 71.013(1)(a)."

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: This is particularly true when it comes to translating documents which refer to the provisions. Extreme caution must be exercised to ensure that there is indeed an equivalent provision in the other language.

Senator Prud'homme: I do not understand the provision on page 21. We had the same problem with Mr. Hawkes and I will not understand it as long as I live. Why is this provision so harsh? It results in all kinds of delays.

[English]

Senator Moore may go and say that Senator Prud'homme is not supposed to be on the list. It takes many days and a lot of work. Suddenly we say, "If you want to avoid all that, why do you not shut up?" You go on the day of the election and say, "I am a Canadian. I am 18 years old. To hell with the rest. I want to vote." What is reasonable information?

It is not your fault. It was done by us.

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: Allow me to reassure you, Senator Prud'homme.

Senator Prud'homme: By all means.

Mr. Girard: When the elections were held in Canada in 1993, there were a total of 21 cases nationwide out of a total of 20 million electors.

Senator Prud'homme: I see.

Mr. Girard: Therefore, this provision has not been abused.

[English]

Senator Prud'homme: The challenge?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: Right.

Senator Gigantès: Then I plan to challenge this provision when I retire.

Senator Prud'homme: You are being quite specific, senator.

At one point, there were cases of abuse. It was terrible. People would say: "If you think I will go before the court to explain that I exist, think again. I do exist." Their names were then struck from the list.

Subsection 3 on page 26 refers to the list of electors used at a postponed election. I was under the impression that the list used was the one up to date on the day the writ was dropped. Here it says that if the election is postponed one month, the lists used will be the revised ones in place six days before the new polling day.

Mr. Girard: The status quo will prevail. Currently, the revision period ends on the fifth day before polling day, and this has been changed to the sixth day. Subsection 3 takes this adjustment into account.

[English]

Senator Prud'homme: Last but not least, the famous hours of voting. Newfoundland is happy with 9:30 to 9:30 for 18 million people. The workers have to stay in the polls until late at night. By experience, having run at least 10 times, I can say that at the end of the day people are tired. I understand what we want to achieve. We want to make the people of British Columbia happy, and I agree with that.

Now we read the criticism about closing at 7 o'clock. It seems not to be making anyone happy in British Columbia. We are trying to accommodate them, and all the editorials seem to be contrary to what we are trying to achieve. We want to put all Canadians on an equal footing.

Am I right to say that in the old days the polls closed at 8 o'clock in British Columbia and that now they will close at 7 o'clock?. However, instead of opening at 9 o'clock in the morning, they will open at 7 o'clock?

I would have preferred two bills. The first bill would deal with the issue of the 36-day time frame, and the bill for the hours could have been dealt with in February. Am I right to say that you do not need to deal with the issue of hours now to proceed with the rest of the bill?

Mr. Kingsley: The hours can be dealt with at any reasonable time, Senator Prud'homme.

Senator Prud'homme: You would be happy if there were an amendment to reflect the change in hours.

The Chair: Senator Prud'homme, it is not quite fair to put Mr. Kingsley on the spot like that.

Senator Prud'homme: He would be happy in the sense that he is an officer of Parliament. If he says, "No, I am not happy because I cannot function with that," I would listen to him. However, if we were to delay that little clause, it would not prevent you from proceeding with the remainder of the bill, which is much more complicated. In that sense, you are happy with the suggestion.

Mr. Kingsley: I can live with this being in the bill, senator.

Senator Prud'homme: You, but what about your workers in Ontario and Quebec?

Mr. Kingsley: It must be realized that I did brief the committee of the House of Commons extensively and offered all the possible scenarios for their consideration. I advised them about the importance of this on electoral workers and the lateness of closing. In terms of lateness of closing, in effect, it is in the east where the closing time will be an hour-and-a-half later. I have expressed the view that this is something which Elections Canada can accommodate as part of the whole process of give and take that must occur. It is impossible to achieve what we are all trying to achieve without varying the hours.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley, as someone who grew up in Atlantic Canada, I assume that, when you are referring to the east, you are referring to central Canada.

Mr. Kingsley: As a matter of fact, I am referring to the Eastern Time Zone as opposed to Mountain and Pacific Time Zones.

Senator Prud'homme: I know you have been extraordinarily helpful in explaining to the members of the House of Commons all the options. Here, however, we are not privy to all of your options.

Was that something else that you proposed in the House of Commons? I know you spoke to them about your workers. It is your job to be concerned about your workers. Has there been any proposal to delay?

Mr. Kingsley: I told the committee in the other place to make sure that they appreciated the areas where there could be flexibility. For example, counting starts effectively half an hour after the close of the polls, before the results are transmitted from the first series of polls to the returning office. I suggested that they might want to take that half hour into account so that polling offices would not be kept open unnecessarily. I also apprised them of the fact that there is a limit to the length of time polls can be kept open, because at a certain point it becomes more difficult to recruit staff. There had been some proposals made, I think in the media, for 15-hour days, but that would be getting very close to not being able to carry through in an efficient manner.

Senator Murray: It would be expensive too.

Senator Prud'homme: That came from The Toronto Star, an unbelievable, wild stupidity.

Mr. Kingsley: I did not develop a series of proposals for the committee. They were already considering a number of proposals, and I just gave them the major factors, not only concerning the workers but concerning the overall process, so that they would have an appreciation of the areas where I felt there was opportunity for flexibility in terms of hours and in terms of how long it takes to count ballots, while maintaining a credible system. The concern I was trying to express was with respect to broadcasting. As technology is progressing at a frenetic pace, it will be difficult to control the Internet, for example, when it comes to spreading the results. Right now it can be done with satellite dishes. We know they did it in the last election. At any moment in time, who do you take to court for breaking the law? That really was the concern I expressed to them.

I expressed that concern in the report that I tabled earlier this year in the House of Commons and in the Senate on areas where improvements could be made in the Elections Act. I made 122 recommendations building on the royal commission report, and that was just one of them.

Senator Murray: Have they been considered?

Mr. Kingsley: They have not at this stage been considered either by the House of Commons or by the Senate. I am prepared to appear before the House of Commons or the Senate, through any vehicle they wish, to discuss the matter.

Senator Prud'homme: I have heard the comment that political parties could use the electoral list for fund-raising. Is this correct?

Mr. Girard: At page 25.

Senator Prud'homme: Read that please, political people. I would love to run for election again if I knew that were possible. Where did this come from?

Mr. Girard: From the government.

Senator Prud'homme: It is a bill of the government. I did not hear anyone from the opposition opposing it. I want you to know, for the record, that I totally disagree with that section. It will lead to abuse. People will be upset when they start receiving unsolicited invitations to subscribe to political parties. They will say, "Who the hell got my name, and from what list?"

Senator Murray: Do you think that is anything new?

Senator Prud'homme: No, but put me in charge of your campaign and you will see how I can use that to great effect.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I should like to make one last stab at trying to have at least some of my anxieties shared with regard to the efficacy of the new system of getting people on the list as compared to the present system. From what we have read, the present system is considered the most effective in the world. We are the last country to have door-to-door enumeration. Agreed, it is very costly, but we are told that at the first go-round some 92 per cent of eligible voters get on the list and, after revision, that total goes up to 95 per cent.

Surely, with a new system we want to achieve at least the same objective of getting well over 90 per cent of eligible voters on the list. I am not yet convinced that this will happen, at least in the initial stages, as quickly as we have been told. It is just a question of disagreement, not a question of faulting the purpose.

Ms Charles can tell me if my interpretation of her charts is correct to the point of supporting my argument. I am pointing to charts 11 and 12, "Forecast Reliability," where you see that in year zero, which is April 1997, the reliability factor is 100 per cent, which I assume means that as many electors as could be found get on the list at the first go-round. Is that correct?

Ms Charles: That is correct.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Then, after 12 months, that reliability factor drops to some 90 per cent?

Ms Charles: Correct.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Then there is a blip upward, which, based on chart 12, is the first update using motor vehicle statistics, vital statistics, and citizenship data. It goes up to 92 per cent, and then the line blips again year after year as these updates are made, but the trend is downward. How do I interpret that after year five the line is down to 75 or 73 per cent? What does that mean exactly? Maybe some of the answer is in the book we just received this afternoon, "The Register of Electors Project," at page 28, where a similar chart appears with a note saying that the graph shows a forecast reliability of data over five years using updated information from Revenue Canada, et cetera, and the decline in reliability with no updates over the same period. The decline in reliability shows that after five years that line drops to somewhere around 40 per cent, and with the updates the line goes to around 80 per cent. What does that 80 per cent figure indicate?

Ms Charles: If I may, I should like to ask John Armstrong, the chief methodologist responsible for all aspects of determining reliability and assessing reliability on the project, to speak to this point. John has been seconded from Statistics Canada. He is an expert in the field, and I think he would be in a much better position to address that specific issue.

Mr. John Armstrong, Manager, Register Project, Elections Canada: The first part of your question, as I understand it, concerns the reliability of the list at the end of the five-year period.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. As the line goes down to 80 per cent in five years, what does that figure mean?

Mr. Armstrong: It is 80 per cent relative to what we would have under the current system on a final list of electors.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Am I comparing apples and oranges? I am using the figures that have been submitted officially. The present door-to-door enumeration allows some 95 per cent of eligible electors to be confirmed on the final list of voters.

Mr. Armstrong: That is correct.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is that 80 per cent the same as the 95 per cent I am quoting, or is it referring to something else? It is 80 per cent of what?

Mr. Armstrong: It is 80 per cent of the 95 per cent. For the purposes of these graphs, we have assumed that the current system is 100 per cent. The current system is our standard.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Does that mean that, under the new system, there will be fewer voters at the end of five years on an updated revised list than there would be if there were a complete door-to-door enumeration done in year five? Which system will get the most voters at any given point in time; door-to-door enumeration or an updated permanent registry with all the data made available to the registrar?

Mr. Armstrong: Chart 11 refers to the quality of the register at the beginning of the electoral period. Eighty per cent on Chart 11 means that the quality of the register at the beginning of the electoral period will be equivalent to the 1992 list at the start of the 1993 electoral period.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am sure I am not making myself clear. How can any system be more efficient in terms of getting people on the list than a door-to-door enumeration system?

Mr. Armstrong: We expect, going into an electoral event with a list of 80 per cent quality, that we will receive revisions which will bring the quality of the final list up to a level equivalent to the quality of the final list under the current system.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: When you say "quality," do you mean quality in terms of accuracy or quality in terms of numbers of voters?

Mr. Armstrong: In terms of both numbers of voters and accuracy.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: So assuming that all the data for which Elections Canada is now negotiating is available, Elections Canada will, at any given time, be able to provide an electoral list which includes at least 95 per cent of eligible voters?

Mr. Armstrong: No. We can run an event, and at the end of that event we will have an electoral list of 95 per cent of eligible voters.

Senator Gigantès: An election or a referendum.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The list is being updated constantly to keep it ready in case there is a sudden election call. It will not be updated every four or five years.

Senator Pearson: He is saying that we went into the 1993 election using the electors list from the referendum. Then, when you go into an event, the list is upgraded because of the number of people who come on to the list.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not what this chart is saying. The blip upward is done on a constant basis every 12 months. The chart is saying that every 12 months we will take Revenue Canada figures and, because we will get massive numbers at a given period of time, up it goes. Then it says that on a more or less regular basis they will update through other data, but the line continues to go down.

Senator Pearson: No. We will start into an election at about the same level as we started into the 1993 election.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: But they did not have the information to update the 1993 list.

Mr. Armstrong: The line on this chart refers to the quality of the register without an electoral event taking place. Eighty per cent on this chart indicates that the quality of the register would be equivalent to the quality of the 1992 list at the beginning of the 1993 event.

We know that, if we run an event with the register at 80 per cent quality, at the end of the event we will have a list of electors equivalent to what we obtained under the old system -- that is, with 95 per cent of the electors on the list.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What additional data will you get, if an election event is called in year two or year three where the line goes down to 80 per cent, to bring that up to 95 per cent?

Mr. Armstrong: We will get changes to the list through enhanced revision.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you think that will be at least as effective as the previous system?

Mr. Armstrong: We know from the 1993 experience that revisions brought the final list up to equivalent quality.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Thank you for being so patient with me on that.

Senator Tkachuk: I should like to ask a supplementary question.

Forget about 1992 and 1993. That was an exception. We will not have referendums that often, hopefully. Under the current system, on the day the writ is issued we do an enumeration which produces a list which is 90 per cent accurate, and that accuracy goes up to 95 per cent with revisions during the writ period.

Mr. Armstrong: That is right.

Senator Tkachuk: Forgetting the referendum, when the writ is dropped, how accurate is the list?

Mr. Armstrong: It is 80 per cent accurate.

Senator Tkachuk: Is that 80 per cent of the total number of electors?

Mr. Armstrong: It is 80 per cent of our standard of 95 per cent.

Senator Tkachuk: So it is 75 per cent of the total number of electors?

Mr. Armstrong: That is correct.

Senator Tkachuk: So it is really three-quarters accurate. Actually, revision serves the purpose of making the list more accurate during the campaign period, taking it all the way from 75 per cent to 95 per cent, as it would the extra 5 per cent in a 47-day campaign. This will now all be done in a 36-day period.

Mr. Armstrong: That is right.

Senator Tkachuk: So it is really 75 per cent of the total number of electors when the writ is issued.

Mr. Armstrong: That is right.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am skill skeptical, but I will not belabour it. This has been a good exchange.

Senator Murray: I wish to flag something which occurred to me -- and you can get to it later, if you wish.

The expense limit for the parties is presently calculated on the basis of the preliminary list; is it not?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Murray: That will not change?

Mr. Kingsley: No.

Senator Murray: This will come as a disagreeable surprise to some people who have a lot of money to spend but, if the limits are calculated on the basis of the preliminary list and the preliminary list under the new system will only be approximately 80 per cent accurate, the spending limits for the parties will be a lot less than people have been counting on.

Mr. Kingsley: The answer is the opposite, in effect, for a number of reasons.

First, when we talk about an 80 per cent accurate list, we mean that the names and addresses on the list are 80 per cent accurate. There are still names with the wrong address. They are tabulated to establish the limit, because it is the number of names on the list. This is not an artifice. This is not a way of giving more money to parties; it is a reality. Moreover, currently the limits are set based on the preliminary list, which contains 92 per cent of the names, and then a further 3 per cent of the names are added for which no money was attributed in the spending limits to parties and candidates.

Under this bill, within four or five days of the issuance of the writ the limits would be set knowing that we had the same number of names as we would have had with the 95 per cent under the present system.

Senator Murray: In 1993 I was told about a riding, which I will not name, where 101 per cent of the population was on the voters list. That seems incredible.

Mr. Kingsley: This is quite possible. I have indicated that the law which was passed in 1993 did not allow me to remove names. This bill would allow the removal of names of people who have moved from one place to another and also would allow for the removal of the names of people who are deceased.

I want senators to know this, because you talk about improving laws. Under the present scheme I cannot remove the names of people who are deceased, even if I know they are dead and even if I have to utilize the list within one year for more than one event. It could be from a referendum to an election or an election to an election or a referendum to a referendum. Under this proposed bill, we would gain much more accuracy.

I believe in this project; otherwise, I would not have presented it to the committee over the last two years. I will plead guilty to believing in the project.

There is greater accuracy with a computerized permanent list. Not only do you get the correct spelling of the name once the final corrections are made, but you also get the right address and postal code. Moreover, we would be tying into new addresses as they became available, even if no one lived there when the address was created. In this way the returning officer would know to target that area. Or we may reach out to those electors because the bill allows initiated activities to take place between elections, as the register is being maintained as indicated in the bill.

The Chair: From my understanding of this, we will not lose names necessarily other than those of people who are deceased. We may not necessarily have the accurate name at the accurate location because we may not have received the change of address.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation here. What if a constituency were informed that their spending limit would be so much and then with new data at the end of the election campaign the actual number of electors decreased? What impact would that have on their spending limit?

Mr. Kingsley: If you mean retroactively, it would have no impact. The law is precise in this regard. You set the limit as a function of your preliminary list, period. That is what we do for parties and for candidates. Each candidate is advised at the moment the preliminary list is struck, and that is it.

The Chair: You do not anticipate that the preliminary list will necessarily have fewer names, but that it might not be as accurate as the door-to-door enumeration list. Is that right?

Mr. Kingsley: That is the issue which must be reconciled when you are constructing a permanent register, no matter what mechanism you use, even if you invoked a mechanism whereby we would set up a huge bureaucracy in Ottawa and people actually believed that it was important to write to the Chief Electoral Officer to let him or her know that there was a change of address. Even with that you would get time delays and what I will call erosion of the accuracy of the list. This is the experience worldwide. It is a time factor.

It is a fact that Canadians do not keep the OHIPs of this world advised of their address changes unless and until they actually go to see a doctor and they are asked, "Do you still live at the same address?" They usually respond, "Oh, no, I moved two years ago." Two years is too long a time.

In this project, the feasibility report which was circulated to this committee as well as to members of the committee of the House of Commons indicates the mechanisms and the timeframes and their impact on the accuracy of the list. The 1993 experience simply cannot be discounted. It is the foundation of this measure which is before you.

Canadians outside Quebec do not even remember that they were not solicited door-to-door for the federal election; they do not even remember this. This scheme proposes to keep the list up-to-date through the various mechanisms that have been indicated. There is also a mail-out that occurs immediately after the preliminary lists are sent.

The card will have a better design than the previous card in 1993. It will indicate your name and address and ask you to get in touch with the returning officer if there is an error in the name or address. This is the revised process. We will have four more days to do than we do now. In other words, we will have 28 days instead of 24.

This is where we get the comfort level about our ability to maintain a good list. Over time, it is better than door-to-door enumeration, with all the difficulties of spelling of names, spelling of street names and postal codes because all these problems will have been avoided.

Senator Prud'homme: People want to strike out names. They used to have at least the list of people on their street. How do we know if someone wants to check the list and say, "Kingsley does not have the right to vote and I will protest that, according to the act." Where do they get this information?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: Given the privacy provisions in place, someone who wants to know, for example, whether or not his neighbour is on the electoral list will have to go down to the office of the returning officer and request this information. He will receive confirmation at that time, but he will not be given access to the lists.

Senator Prud'homme: I see.

Mr. Girard: That is the law at the present time and the status quo will be maintained under the bill's provisions. Only candidates and, of course, political parties are entitled to see the lists, not ordinary citizens. However, it is possible to file an objection to a person's name appearing on the list.

For example, if you know that your neighbour is not a Canadian citizen and if you have seen the enumerator stop by his residence, you may have some doubts and you can check with the office of the returning officer. If you discover that this person's name is on the list, you could file an objection.

Senator Prud'homme: So too could political organizations, obviously because they have a copy of the list.

Mr. Girard: Indeed.

Senator Beaudoin: Since these lists will be made public at some point, what reason is there for refusing to disclose the information in the first place?

Mr. Girard: I am not certain that I understand your question, senator.

Senator Beaudoin: If a person, out of curiosity I would imagine or for some other reason, wishes to know if a particular person's name appears on the list, what provision entitles you not to give this information?

Mr. Girard: The provisions of the Privacy Act come into play. Pursuant to the legislation, the information in the register or in the lists can be shared with parties and candidates, and with no one else. Otherwise, the provisions of the Privacy Act apply and such information cannot be disclosed.

Senator Beaudoin: And this is clear in the Act?

Mr. Girard: Yes, in both the Elections Act and the Privacy Act which complements the Elections Act.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for your patience, Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, it was very informative. I will return to that main point later.

I wish to turn to page 36 of the book entitled, The Register of Electors Project, A Report on Research and Feasibility. On this page we find an implementation schedule, on the assumption that the amendments will be in place by the end of June. If everyone has the book, I will not take time to read it.

It assumes that it will take one year and two months from June 1996 to August 1997 to see that everything is in place and that the register is ready for use. Is that calendar still valid today or has it been shortened as a result of your going out for tenders for the systems development and discussions with the provinces and territories?

Can we say the register, on the assumption that these amendments are proclaimed within the next month or so, will go into effect six months after August 1997 or January 1998?

Mr. Kingsley: If it was only circulated today, I apologize for that.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I have only seen it today; perhaps others have seen it.

Mr. Kingsley: It has been around since March 1996.

This was meant for the committee of the House of Commons, which was considering the matter at the time, to focus on the two scenarios that were before it at the time. The first scenario, as I said in my introductory remarks, involved a lot more logistical work with the private sector companies and Canada Post because we were to do a mail-out and a mail-back instead of door-to-door enumeration. It was a different dynamic.

As well, we were proposing to run the province of New Brunswick as a pilot project. It required as much time to do that as to do the whole thing.

That is how that calendar was arrived at.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is it valid today?

Mr. Kingsley: I would have to look at it today.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It says that, to be ready for use for a fall 1997 election, Elections Canada must begin to design the register immediately and start the activities needed to establish the register's infrastructure in the summer of 1996.

That is to be ready for a fall 1997 election. We are nearly six months later. Can you still be ready for a fall 1997 election?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: The answer is yes, for the following reason: the scenario we are proposing is one with which we are familiar. An enumeration is conducted, data is gathered and when an election is called, a preliminary list of electors is established based on the data in the bank. In short, we are not reinventing this system as was initially proposed. That is why the time needed to implement the proposal is different.

Let me give you an example: next April, we will conduct once again a door-to-door enumeration. This will take approximately three weeks, or perhaps a few days longer, following which we will give notice in the Canada Gazette that the enumeration has been completed. From this moment forward, the provisions of the bill respecting the shortened 36-day electoral calendar will take effect.

To answer your question, if, after the enumeration is completed, a general election is called in March, and these are hypothetical dates, the register and 36-day calendar would apply, meaning that the election would be held in May.

Senator Nolin: I simply want to understand how events will unfold. You will be conducting an enumeration in April 1997, is that not correct?

Mr. Girard: Yes.

Senator Nolin: One month later, you will give notice in the Canada Gazette that the enumeration has been completed. This means that if an election were called at this time, the electoral period would last 36 days. Is that correct?

Mr. Girard: Yes, you have understood.

Senator Nolin: I just wanted to be sure because the chart does not say that.

Mr. Kingsley: No, this chart is no longer valid.

Mr. Girard: Again, the approach being suggested is not the one retained by the government. The feasibility study is valid in that it resulted in this bill, but the approach retained is not the same.

[English]

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yesterday it was pointed out that section 9 remains unchanged in the act. It is called "power to adapt the act." As we are finding out, not only ministers have residual powers but also some agents of Parliament.

If I read and interpret this correctly, Mr. Kingsley, you have absolute authority to intervene if you see, by reason of any mistake, miscalculation, emergency, or unusual or unforeseen circumstances, that some of the provisions of this act cannot be applied for whatever reason.

That is so broad that it pretty well gives you the authority to intervene to correct on your own some situation which you feel cannot be corrected through applying the act itself. Is that correct?

Mr. Kingsley: That is correct. It has been this way for a long time.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. Does that mean, that if, for whatever reason, you see that the permanent registry is not supplying you with the number of voters or the accuracy that you require, you can go back to door-to-door enumeration or go back to another system which would allow you to find those electors which the permanent registry has not found for you?

In other words, for whatever reason, the registry is not function in the way it should. Do you then have the authority to find those missing electors through door-to-door enumeration or any other system that may be applicable under those circumstances?

Mr. Kingsley: I should like to answer that question completely so that it is quite clear. I have utilized that power in the past as have others who have preceded me, but very sparingly. Before I would invoke that power under the scenario that you have described, I would want to exhaust the avenues available to me under the statute. Let me give you an example.

Bill C-63 allows, in Schedule IV, the use of any alternate data source that the Chief Electoral Officer considers appropriate. It could include, as was pointed out by Ms Charles earlier this morning, health records from a province, property assessment records, utilities records, the national change of address of the Canada Post Office, and others that will become available that do not exist now. These are things that I would want to consider before proceeding to invoke section 9(1).

Senator Lynch-Staunton: However, if that information is not available or is not made available to you, or one province goes into a sulk and will not co-operate with you any more and breaches the agreement 30 days before the election for whatever reason, what can you do to accommodate those electors whose names you are no longer getting through the system we are discussing today? What backups are available to you?

Mr. Kingsley: There are several elements to the answer, and I should like to give them all so that you have a complete picture.

There are several avenues I would want to explore. I mentioned some of them, such as existing data banks and data banks that will come into being that do not exist now and utilities. We can get a lot of address changes from utilities. We can do telephone follow-ups where the principal householder is listed.

Under the statute, we can carry out a publicity campaign through the most pertinent media to reach that electorate about revising the list, saying, "We have not picked up all of the address changes. It is important for you to notify us." We could also make registration forms available generally if that became an issue.

As an ultimate measure, during an event we have targeted revision in certain areas of high mobility and in new developments. Bill C-63 would allow us to go door-to-door in those areas and drop off registration forms and to marry that with the publicity campaign which I have just mentioned, urging people to register immediately with their returning officers under the appropriate name and address. Those forms are all pre-numbered and controlled so that, when they come back, we know if people are claiming to be residents of the address where we dropped it off. We have these control mechanisms now through computers, which were not possible with the manual system.

We have the capacity to do mail-out of registration kits to new addresses where we do not have accurate information. As well, as I was indicating earlier, we have better address data through other sources so that we know where the new projects have occurred.

Before I would consider invoking the extraordinary powers vested under section 9(1), I would pursue those are other avenues. If it were absolutely necessary to invoke section 9(1), then I would do so.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The idea is a good one, but I think it is being implemented without enough elements in place. We have a system here where we can put 95 per cent of eligible voters on the list. No one can give us a guarantee, but it would be more than unfortunate if, at the first or any election under this system, we could not maintain that 95 per cent figure or even increase it.

We can implement this system one year from now and give you a little more breathing room. Parliament could pass the bill and stipulate that it go into effect at a later date. You could hold a last enumeration for the next election and build on that once the election has been called. You could have your enumeration and put this into effect for the following election.

We may have an election this year or next year at the latest. We have less than two years, to October 1998, to put all of this into place and have it all ready. I think you need that time, with all due respect to the work you have done and the expertise and the competence that you have.

It would be more than unfortunate if we could not maintain that high eligibility figure which, as I understand it, is one of the highest in the world and which is a credit to this country. That standard is used by provinces and municipalities. Now we will move on to a more modern, updated and sophisticated system. However, the point of an election is to have as many people as possible aware of the election and on the list and out to vote. We have achieved that so far.

Saving $30 million is one thing, but the expense is worth it and more if we can maintain the high numbers on the list and the high turnouts that we now have.

I do not know what support I have for this, but I would urge that the implementation be delayed by at least one year.

Mr. Kingsley: Certainly, it is up to parliamentarians to decide how they feel about the project and certainly how they feel about Bill C-63. It is not for me to comment on that. However, I wish to tell the committee, in light of the comments, that with respect to the forthcoming general election, I can only say that what applied in 1993 is exactly what would apply in the coming election, even if nothing were to kick in.

In effect, if nothing were to kick in, then there would be time after the election to put the system into play. Our project foresees things coming into play by the fall of 1997, and I continue to have confidence in that. However, that is a personal matter, and I do not wish to comment any further on that. I certainly respect the opinion of Senator Lynch-Staunton on this matter and the delicacy with which he has put it. I am grateful to him for that.

Senator Tkachuk: I want to go back to the list and the 76 per cent figure on writ day. This is important. We are making it more incumbent upon the individual to register. That is fine, if we choose to move slowly in that direction. Let us talk about that in practical terms.

I assume that the 76 per cent is a universal statistic. In other words, the rural area accuracy rate, where people do not move as much, will be more accurate than downtown Vancouver? If 76 per cent is the average in the country as a whole, what do you think the average is in downtown Vancouver when the writ is issued?

Mr. Kingsley: This comment was also made by Senator Tkachuk when he spoke in the Senate on this matter. We appreciated his having said that because it gave us an opportunity to review the data that we had already gathered.

Mr. John Armstrong will answer that question. He can site the statistics for the worst riding for the 1993 general election, in terms of names needing to be changed or added to the list, if that would satisfy you.

Senator Tkachuk: No, it will not because you did a door-to-door enumeration. I am using your 76 per cent figure. You already said that, over time, the voters list is 76 per cent accurate on the date the writ is issued.

The accuracy would be much lower in downtown Toronto or even in downtown Saskatoon than in the rural riding of Battleford-Kindersley. Would it be 50 per cent or 60 per cent?

Mr. Armstrong: We have the information by electoral district for the 1993 event. The worst riding was Calgary Centre which started at 64 per cent; Vancouver Centre was 67 per cent. There were a number in the high 60s and low 70s in terms of initial accuracy.

Senator Tkachuk: Say we have 66 per cent in a riding with 70,000 electors. That would be an average riding?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Tkachuk: Two-thirds of that number, namely 42,000, would be accurate and we would have somewhere in the area of 28,000 revisions to make.

Mr. Armstrong: It would perhaps be a bit lower than that. It would be about 25,000, yes.

Senator Tkachuk: You must do 25,000 revisions in a 36-day writ period?

Mr. Armstrong: That is correct.

Senator Bryden: May I ask a supplementary question? You indicated that the worst beginning position was 66 per cent. When you finished the revisions, what was the accuracy level of the final list of electors in those ridings?

The Chair: If you started in Calgary Centre at 64 per cent, where did you end up at the end of the day?

Mr. Armstrong: I do not have those numbers by electoral district, but the experience was that the overall quality was equivalent to the quality of the final list.

Senator Bryden: Which is what?

Ms Charles: It is 95 per cent after revision. We have that breakdown available, but we do not have it with us now. We could provide it if senators are interested in it. It indicates what actually happened by electoral district.

Senator Bryden: If it is not too difficult, it would be useful to have it tomorrow.

Ms Charles: Certainly. We will check on that.

Senator Tkachuk: This brings me to my second concern. One of the reasons for these changes is to save money. We will pay an enumerator in the next election what amount per name?

Mr. Kingsley: We pay 66 cents for the first 200 names and then 97 cents for the names thereafter. The average pay per enumerator is approximately $275. I do not wish to be hung on this one, sir -- on others, yes, but not on this one.

Senator Tkachuk: Getting the name into the system is not the real cost; the real cost is in maintaining that system.

In other words, to build the first data base will cost the same amount of money. The aim is to maintain the accuracy of those 70,000 names in a particular constituency as much as possible.

At the end of a four-year period, one-third of those names, even after all that work, will be inaccurate. That is what you have told me.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Tkachuk: We are trying to maintain the accuracy of approximately 42,000 names to take us from this election to the next one. If a particular constituency consists mainly of high-density apartment buildings, that list may change completely over that period.

What will it cost you per name, per year, to maintain the accuracy of those 42,000 per constituency? The rest will be done by revision anyway.

Ms Charles: I will call upon one of the experts from the project team. Our numbers man, Rennie Molnar, is in a better position to deal with these details.

Mr. Rennie Molnar, Manager, Register Project, Elections Canada: We estimate our annual maintenance to cost approximately $5 million per year.

Senator Tkachuk: Let us do it per riding.

Mr. Molnar: I will break it down. If we assume 20 million electors nationally, that gives us 25 cents. If we apply the 25 cents to your 42,000 figure, the cost would be approximately $10,000.

Senator Tkachuk: $10,000 for what?

Mr. Molnar: For the specific riding of which you spoke, for the 42,000 figure.

Senator Tkachuk: That is over four years?

Mr. Molnar: That is annually, sir.

Senator Tkachuk: It works out to $10,000 to maintain that list?

Mr. Molnar: Yes, annually. If you want to take it over the four-year period, you multiply by four.

Senator Tkachuk: What does it cost to enumerate per riding every four years? Does it cost $40,000?

Mr. Molnar: Using the 70,000 figure that we talked about, it costs $3 per elector, so it would be $210,000.

Senator Tkachuk: You tell me you will be maintaining 42,000 names out of 70,000, maintain a 42 per cent accuracy rate for $42,000 a year?

Mr. Molnar: Yes, that is correct, in the specific, worst-case riding that we have selected here.

Senator Tkachuk: I have a lot of scepticism about that; however, I am glad it is on the record.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Getting back to the question of costs, the bill stipulates that agreements may be entered into requiring valuable consideration to be given when an electoral list is purchased or obtained from a jurisdiction other than the federal one. Have you considered the possibility, for example, that the province of Quebec might sell its list to the federal government? I would assume that Mr. Côté will be told by the government to sell the list.

Mr. Kingsley: We will purchase a list if necessary. The cost of updating the list with the aid of third parties is included in the estimates tabled with the bill. Therefore, it would cost so much per name, based on the frequency, to reimburse Ontario's Registrar of Vital Statistics.

Senator Nolin: Is that cost included in the $5 million?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Nolin: In other words, the cost is $5 million per year?

Ms Charles: Yes.

Senator Nolin: And therefore $20 million over a standard four-year period?

Ms Charles: Yes.

Mr. Kingsley: Correct.

Senator Nolin: Compared to the $22 million that it currently costs every four years. Currently, it costs you $22 million to conduct an enumeration. Is that right?

Mr. Kingsley: No.

Senator Prud'homme: No, I heard him say $200 million.

Senator Nolin: No.

Mr. Kingsley: No, we have to be careful before throwing out figures.

Senator Nolin: I got this figure somewhere.

Senator Murray: What was the cost of all of the preparations that you mentioned earlier?

Mr. Kingsley: If you will indulge me for a moment, the feasibility study was carried out at a cost of $1.3 million and since then, we have spent approximately $300,000. All of this was included in the projected cost of approximately $1.6 or $1.7 million.

Senator Nolin: Mr. Kingsley, suppose I was the Prime Minister of Canada and that I called to ask you when I could call the election, assuming this legislation was in force?

Mr. Kingsley: I can give you an honest answer. I believe Mr. Girard answered the question earlier. As soon as the enumeration has been completed and we have given notice in the Canada Gazette that the register exists and can be used to establish preliminary lists, then we are talking about April 25 or thereabouts, give or take a few days after the enumeration period. From that point onward, you can do what you want.

Senator Nolin: I understand.

Senator Prud'homme: After then --

Mr. Kingsley: The election can be called at any time. I would add anytime after then --

Senator Nolin: Therefore, the earliest date --

Senator Prud'homme: What would be the earliest date an election could be called?

Senator Murray: At the end of the third week of April.

[English]

Mr. Kingsley: Door-to-door enumeration involves more than just the people who collect the names. The annual cost is $61 million at present. This number is indicated on the sheets that we handed out. That is the number which you must multiply by four to arrive at the four-year total. You then multiply the four times five, plus the set-up costs, the amortization of the costs. All of this must be built into the costs.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: That is if we take into account your final enumeration which will last at least two or three weeks.

Mr. Kingsley: As usual, door-to-door enumeration will last seven days. We will follow exactly the same formula when it comes to setting up the offices of the returning officers. They will be located in the electoral districts. The returning officer will organize the parties that finished first or second in the district and will supply the names of the enumerators and so forth. The same formula will apply.

Senator Nolin: I am interested in the date.

Mr. Kingsley: And I answered your question.

Senator Nolin: In other words, the end of April at the latest.

Mr. Kingsley: The enumeration period lasts three weeks, while the actual enumeration takes one week.

Senator Nolin: In order to answer the Prime Minister's question, when do you need this legislation to be in place?

Mr. Kingsley: The bill mentions that the enumeration period would start at the beginning of April. Therefore, I need approximately three months.

Senator Nolin: You need three months from the day the legislation comes into force to the day that you can go ahead with your enumeration.

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, three months.

Senator Murray: If the bill were to receive Royal Assent during the first two weeks of January, would that give you enough time?

Mr. Kingsley: You are already trying to reduce the amount of time I need. This invariably happens each time I give testimony. I say three months, and someone takes this to mean that I really mean two and a half weeks. All I can say is that I am prone to getting migraine headaches, and if this happened, I would be in for the headache of the century. I can guarantee that it will be difficult to coordinate everything. We have even devised a time line.

Senator Murray: What do you plan to do during the holidays?

Mr. Kingsley: For starters, I am going to take a well-deserved break.

Senator Nolin: He is going to cook a turkey.

Mr. Kingsley: The legislation will come into force in early January. As I mentioned this morning, we have a request for proposals ready. Over the holidays, officials will evaluate this tender, call in the bidders so that we can come to a decision by early January and award the contract, provided Bill C-63 passes into law.

I will be honest with you. We were able to move ahead with the Referendum Act six weeks after it came into force. We were able to tell them that we were ready. Each day, we did what we had to do, just as if we were in the throes of an election period.

We did the same thing with C-114. Barely two months after this highly complex piece of legislation was adopted and received Royal Assent, not six months as the legislation stated, but only two months after, I gave notice in the Canada Gazette that we were prepared to move forward.

The only reason why we were able to do this was because we had planned everything very carefully. When I say three months, I am basing this on very careful planning. I am not known for taking unnecessary risks. Elections Canada is not known for this either. Therefore, I am being very honest when I say that I need three months' lead time.

I even discussed this possibility with people in case this question was put to me. Again, I have to say that we need three months. Obviously, if I am given one or two weeks less to work with, I will try to make do. I cannot guarantee anything, but I would try to do the impossible.

Senator Nolin: However, what if the enumeration period was moved up by two weeks? In other words, what if you started to conduct your enumeration on March 15 rather than in early April? This is assuming you have been asked to move up the election period?

Mr. Kingsley: I can tell you right away that I am not in a position to launch the enumeration process on March 15.

Senator Nolin: In other words, there is no question of conducting the enumeration before April 1?

Mr. Kingsley: No.

Senator Nolin: And it will take one month --

Mr. Kingsley: Pursuant to the legislation before us, I am required to be ready at any time.

Senator Nolin: I understand.

Mr. Kingsley: Pursuant to this bill, I cannot start the enumeration before April 1. I am certain about that.

Senator Murray: You have already agreed to a notwithstanding clause in this bill. The Elections Act stipulates that any amendment to the Act takes effect after a period of six months. Ordinarily, any amendment to the Elections Act cannot apply in the case of an election called before the six-month period has elapsed.

Mr. Kingsley: Perhaps Mr. Girard could explain this to you further.

Mr. Girard: You are correct, Senator Murray. This provision has been amended and the six-month period has been replaced by April 1. However, I would add that pursuant to the Act, these provisions could also come into force before April 1 as well.

Senator Murray: Yes, I noticed that.

[English]

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What you are saying, Mr. Kingsley, is that you would like more time to get this all into place. For some reason, the Senate may not pass this bill before Christmas. I am not saying that will happen, but I find it unusual that we are expected to pass a law by a certain date because the bill stipulates a certain date for the legislation to take effect. To me, it should be the other way around. Once Parliament passes a law, then it goes into effect, period. This bill stipulates April 1 as being the date that the legislation should take effect. I say that that is not treating Parliament with the respect it deserves. If we do not pass the bill until January, then you should change the bill to read May 1 or June 1.

I am not pointing the finger at you, sir. I hear what you are saying and I know the problems you will have if we delay. However, I think the government will be more sympathetic, given what we have heard today, and will accept a delay, which would help you and all Canadians make sure that we have the election list we are looking for.

Senator Prud'homme: You mentioned that enumeration will be done over three weeks and that everything will be done under the supervision of the returning officer of the district. You also stated that the campaign will be over 36 days.

We know that returning officers are paid a token amount of money year round to be on standby, and then they are paid a large sum of money when the election is called. They will work full-time enumerating for three weeks; is that correct?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes.

Senator Prud'homme: If the political masters of the day should decide not to call the election, the list is ready. At the call of the election, they re-institute their workers. Do you know how much money these workers are paid for the 36 days running up to the election?

It is like doing two complete, separate entities -- enumeration or standby. Technically speaking, it could be three weeks. The returning officer is in charge of everything. He disappears, and you take over the list. If the election is called, he is called to return to work full-time for 36 days. Will this money be paid in one lump sum, or will it be separate?

Mr. Kingsley: First, returning officers are not paid anything if they are not doing any work. There is no standby pay for a returning officer.

[Translation]

Senator Prud'homme: No, but you pay them a token amount nevertheless to revise the lists and the polls.

[English]

Mr. Kingsley: But that is not standby pay; that is pay for work performed.

Senator Prud'homme: Yes, for very little work.

Mr. Kingsley: Without telling you the amount of pay, I can tell you that the amount that returning officers would receive to do the enumeration outside the event, in accordance with Bill C-63, would be commensurate on a daily basis with what they receive during an electoral event. The same applies for the subsequent electoral event, which could be a referendum or an election. That is why we keep calling them electoral events, because there are two statutes still on the books in Canada.

Senator Prud'homme: Sadly.

Mr. Kingsley: The rates of pay would be commensurate with the amount of work they put in on a quasi per-diem basis and would also reflect the complexity of the riding, because there are gradations among the ridings as well. That is how we would remunerate them. It is strictly for the work performed. There is no stand-by pay. They are paid only for the work that they do or while they are being trained, for which we pay a per diem as well.

Senator Prud'homme: Are they paid the same salary for the 36 days and also for the three weeks of enumeration?

Mr. Kingsley: Returning officers are to be remunerated at the same per-diem rate that they receive now for the enumeration and for the subsequent election. Instead of being paid for a minimum of 47 days of work, returning officers will be paid for a minimum of 36 days of work and that further 11 days will be taken into account proportionately in their remuneration. I do not have the numbers at hand, but I can provide them.

Senator Prud'homme: We could say that 36 plus 16 equals 52 days, which is roughly the length of a campaign under the old rules. The amount of money spent will be approximately the same as in the old days.

Mr. Kingsley: It will be close, but not as close as you are suggesting.

Senator Prud'homme: Would it be lower or higher?

Mr. Kingsley: It will represent more money, including the costs of building the system. It does result in the returning officers getting more because they will be working more days. It is a straight reflection of that.

Senator Bryden: I have a very brief supplementary question.

My understanding, from what you have told us, is that the period of time you would need to have the permanent voters list prepared and to be in a position to conduct all the things that need to be done in the 36-day period and to shorten the election period and to achieve the cost savings that you have outlined would be three months. If you had to try to do it in a shorter period, you are not sure that you could deliver the goods. Is that correct?

Mr. Kingsley: That is right.

Senator Bryden: If we were to delay the passage of the bill, it might mean one of two things. Either this system would not be ready for the next election, if it were called in the spring, or, if it were ready, it would not be as good as you think it could be in three months. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Kingsley: If the three-month planning horizon which I have described were allowed to occur with an April 1 date, as stipulated in this bill, then there would be a high-quality enumeration in this land and a high-quality general election subsequent to that.

Senator Bryden: I wish to express my appreciation for the detail which each of you has provided today. It has never been the function, in the short experience that I have had, of a committee of the Senate or of the Senate to try to delay for the sake of delaying or to try to amend simply for the sake of amending. I want to assure you that this bill will be treated in an objective manner by both this committee and the Senate.

Senator Murray: As I told Mr. Gray yesterday, I do not think there is a question of political advantage in the whole bill. One never knows how a campaign will go until you are in it.

Mr. Kingsley, if an election were called today, you would have to do an enumeration and you would have to start within a few days. Tell me again why you need three months to get Royal Assent and to get this enumeration done.

Mr. Kingsley: First, the last batch of returning officers are completing their nine-day training on the whole electoral system under the present statute, so I am ready to turn that around.

However, to achieve Bill C-63 readiness for an enumeration, we need to change the printing of the enumeration records because we will be picking up the additional fields relating to date of birth. In order to do that, I must change all the training manuals.

Senator Murray: The date of birth is now mandatory.

Senator Pearson: It is not mandatory.

Senator Murray: It is.

Senator Pearson: No, he said he will try.

Senator Prud'homme: Is it or is it not?

Mr. Kingsley: At the present time there is no request for date of birth. Under the present regime, there is nothing related to date of birth.

Senator Murray: And under the new regime?

Mr. Kingsley: There would have to be a place for date of birth on the form when people are going door-to-door.

The Chair: But it would not be a requirement for voting, Mr. Kingsley.

Senator Prud'homme: But will they be told to give it or not?

Mr. Kingsley: Please. I am not changing any of the answers that have been provided so far. I am just answering what are the things that result from this.

Senator Murray: So date of birth is to be added to the form.

Mr. Kingsley: Correct. The returning officers must be retrained in terms of the systems and the changes that will be brought about with that. We must change the training manuals of all the enumerators, the booklet that they receive. We must change all that, because they must know what happens if someone says, "No."

Senator Murray: They must pick up some other information?

Mr. Kingsley: Yes, and how to answer the person who says, "You will not get my date of birth," and how to walk away from a situation like that, but also how to try to obtain it with a reasonable approach. That requires training. We will have to train the enumerating officers and the enumerators in that regard. We do not want people to get into a situation where there is a fight at the door about the date of birth.

National Defence must change its rules under the special voting rules to allow for this. We must reproduce all our communications materials on the new system, with a separate door-to-door enumeration, so that people understand where this is coming from. They must understand that this is the Chief Electoral Officer respecting the law, that it is the last door-to-door enumeration door-to-door, and that they will be asked for their date of birth. This requires a different type of campaign for television, for radio, for newspapers, for ethnic publicity, for aboriginal newspapers. We have systems that are ready to go now, but requiring date of birth requires software changes to pick up the data.

There is also our support network in Ottawa during an event, which supports the people who operate the computers in each returning office. This is all made possible through the advent of personal computers; otherwise, I would not be here. We could not do it with a centralized computer.

We must also finalize the negotiations and sign a contract with the private sector firm which will be working on the system that we have designed so far. We will be required to monitor this very closely on a daily basis to ensure that for that last enumeration we pick up as many electors as possible as accurately as possible.

The forms which will go out next time will be pre-printed with the addresses which we kept from 1993. That will make the job of the enumerators easier. It will take us three months to get to that point.

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: We must not forget that as soon as the enumeration is completed, a general election may be called in accordance with the 36-day calendar. Our goal is not only to prepare for the April 1 enumeration, but to prepare for a general election immediately afterward.

For example, there have been changes to the time frames in all of the documentation pertaining to broadcasting and advertising. All of this material must be rewritten, reprinted and translated. All of this must be reviewed and completed by nomination day, that is between day 28 and day 31.

To add to what Mr. Kingsley said, we have three months not only two to prepare for the enumeration, but also to prepare for a general election which would follow shortly thereafter.

Senator Murray: I am somewhat surprised that you agreed to the notwithstanding clause in the Elections Act. Judging from the point you just made, it seems that you should have more than three months to prepare.

Mr. Kingsley: Based on our experience with the Referendum Act and with Bill C-114, we are confident that we have enough time, given the careful planning that we do and that has earned us our reputation at Elections Canada.

[English]

Senator Lynch-Staunton: With regard to the date of birth issue, either there is a contradiction or I do not understand. On page 7 of the explanatory notes we see:

Subsection 67(2.1) -- This is new. The requirement for the elector to provide date of birth and additional information as per paragraph 67(2)(e) will be optional.

Then, in italics right underneath, it says:

This subsection was amended at third reading to render the provision of date of birth by an elector mandatory.

I went to the French, thinking that perhaps there had been an error. It reads:

[Translation]

It says the same thing, namely that the subsection was amended on third reading. It is noted on page 8 of the French version that this was done "pour rendre obligatoire la publication par chaque électeur de sa date de naissance". Is this mandatory or optional?

Mr. Girard: I do not have the document to which you are referring.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is in the book that was given to us.

[English]

The Chair: They did not prepare that book. I will attempt to get clarification of that. I will undertake to find out why the expanded version seems to imply that.

Senator Prud'homme: I was not provided with those explanatory notes. I want that book.

Through experience, I know that you have tonnes of material ready to go should an election be called today.

Mr. Kingsley: We have 620 tonnes.

Senator Prud'homme: That is material already printed. With all the new changes in Bill C-63, how much of that 620 tonnes of material will be scrapped?

[Translation]

Mr. Girard: We do indeed have tonnes of material in storage that will have to be scrapped, whether or not the bill is adopted, simply because the new electoral map will be in effect after January 8. As a result, we will have to review all our material. Some of if will be out of date in any case.

Mr. Kingsley: I have not estimated how much of this material will be scrapped.

Senator Nolin: They will be able to sell it by the tonne.

[English]

The Chair: Senator Prud'homme, a document is coming to you right now. It was distributed at the first meeting of the committee, at which you were not present. That is why you did not receive it.

Mr. Kingsley: I wish to mention to committee members how much we appreciate this opportunity. However, knowing how curious you are, I should like to do proper presentations where you would be walked through all the steps that we have taken.

I urge you to continue your interest in the electoral process to the extent that I could be invited more frequently to share information with you. I should like to invite members of the committee to Elections Canada, as I have invited the members of the committee of the House of Commons, so that you may gain a deeper understanding of what our job entails and of our perspective on the topics which are eventually brought forward as bills or proposals.

I extend that standing invitation to you. I only hope that I will be invited to appear before the committee more often.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. If you could advise our committee when you intend to present briefings to the House of Commons committee, I am sure that our committee would be more than willing to receive same kinds of briefing.

I refer specifically to the document which was apparently tabled in March 1996, most of which we received today. I understand that members of the House of Commons were briefed on that document but, since we were not aware of that document, we could not request a briefing. If we were given more up-to-date information, I can assure you that we would call on you.

Mr. Kingsley: Thank you. I will act on what you have just said.

The committee adjourned.

---