Evidence of meeting #42 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
11:30 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
On my last appearance, I talked mainly about proof of identity. An address is shown for people on the registry. Now you are saying that that address is not adequate, that we need proof that the person actually lives at that address.
It is true that changes could have been made to the register. The person could be at the right address and say that that is in fact where he or she lives. People in the polling station should then require that the individual provide proof of this. The person could then say that he or she has no such document, but does have an I.D. card. That is a problem.
I do not think there is an easy solution to it. I think that you should look into it and that the new Chief Electoral Officer should have an opportunity to work on that with you.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingsley, speaking personally and on behalf of the NDP, I would like to thank you for the 17 years you spent serving Canadians in the name of democracy.
I would also like to tell you how much you impressed me over the years as an individual. Whenever we asked you a question to which you did not know the answer, it was remarkable to see how quickly you got back to us with the answer.
Your expertise at Elections Canada meant that you were accessible to everyone. If someone wanted to talk to Jean-Pierre Kingsley, that could be done. How many organizations are there where you can never talk to the person in charge? Of course, it is possible to speak with assistants, but not to the person in charge. You have always been remarkably available to serve people.
When there was an issue regarding boundary readjustment for Acadie—Bathurst, I remember there were some problems that I do not want to go into here. I was impressed when you called me at home on a Friday evening around 8 p.m. to tell me that you were going to set things in motion, that there would be no problem, that the decision had been made and that Elections Canada was looking after the matter. I do not think many people would do something like that. Personally, I was very impressed.
I would also like to mention your honesty and your direct approach. Sometimes, you said things that the political parties did not like, but I think you did that in the name of democracy, and I thank you for it.
I would also like to thank you for your tenacity, because it took you 17 years, but you were the person responsible for getting returning officers appointed by Elections Canada. You were like a pit bull, you simply did not give up. After 17 years, you can say that you managed at least to do that. I would like to congratulate you on that as well.
The question about the 1%, 4% or even 5% of people who will not be able to vote concerns me as well. We go to other countries and tell people there that in a democracy, everyone has the right to vote. The members of my party and myself are very concerned about Bill C-31, and that is why we voted against it.
In Vancouver-East, there are many homeless people who have no address. They have no papers, they have no driver's licence and no electricity bill. In the past, a lawyer could sign a document certifying to the Elections Canada staff that she knew certain individuals. The lawyer could perhaps vouch for as many as 30 people. Tables were actually set up on the sidewalk in Vancouver-East to meet people and to have them certified as Canadian citizens.
Now, under Bill C-31, one person can only vouch for one other person. So I think we are going to lose a lot of voters that way. Under the former act, you had calculated that 5% of people would not be able to vote, but under the new act, I think we will be losing more people, and that is unfortunate.
Second, there has been a recommendation that the voter information card be placed in an envelope. I would like to hear your views on that.
My third question has to do with people's birth date. Is that information necessary? We think that the provision of the birth date opens the door to other abuse, because everyone will know the voter's birth date. I think the birth date is a precious piece of information.
At the moment, for example, financial institutions can ask people to provide their birth date in order to check whether a credit card really belongs to a certain person. However, once this bill is passed, everyone will be able to find out an individual's birth date.
I would like your views on these three issues, Mr. Kingsley.
11:30 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the honourable member for his comments, which I find very moving. You were there pretty much from the outset, 17 years ago. You have been a member for quite a long time.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
11:35 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I'm also touched by your comments about the fact that I was available to serve people. Sometimes people criticized us for being available on Friday and Sunday evening to do certain things. I learned when I was the CEO of a hospital that one has to be available to serve people at all hours of the day or night. That is why my telephone number has always been in the telephone book.
When I announced that I was be resigning, I received some phone calls from Canadians—and I will take the liberty to make this comment—who told me how much they appreciated the fact that when they telephoned during an election, I was the person who answered the phone. They wanted to talk to me, and I did just that. So I find it tremendously touching when ordinary Canadians tell me something like that.
As regards the impact of Bill C-31, I have already said what I had to say about the percentages involved. I think the committee will obviously want to look into this matter at some point with Mr. Mayrand. You will need to show some imagination to move forward on this. Perhaps you will find a solution in this type of document. Personally, I have not found a solution to the problem so far.
However, as I said, I was rather surprised by the amendment made by the committee following my appearance. That is not what I was expecting. I thought you would stick with the proof of identity—on that, I was in complete agreement.
As regards the voter information card, there was a project—and we will have to check on this—to put the cards into an envelope with a window, so that we could have even more control over what happened to them. We would have to check how far that project got, I do not remember that. However, I thought the committee did have a good idea. I know that something was done in this regard, but I do not know how far the project got. The cost is minimal, and the integrity of the process is the important thing.
As regards the birth date, the committee made some amendments there as well to make this information more available to the representatives of the parties. I am wondering whether this is really a good idea, because we worked very hard to control the distribution of the list of electors, so much so that, as you know, some information is included in the list provided to members of each party each year. It is specific to each party. In other words, we send the Bloc Québécois the information that is added and that enables us to determine who provided an electoral list specific to the party. It meant we could call up someone in the party and tell that person that the leak came from his or her shop. We could also call up a member of Parliament and say—although I do not think this ever happened—that the leak of the list came from his or her office. People wanted this information to be protected. That was one of the main objectives when the register was established in the act, which was passed on December 12, 1996. We attached a great deal of importance to this.
During an election campaign, it is more difficult to do something of this type. I'm being quite frank here—it is more difficult. When it comes to sharing this type of information, the committee will want to review whether this was the right way of proceeding.
Initially, we proposed that a birth year be shared to provide another check on the individual who comes in to vote. If the person looks 30 but the information shows that he or she is 50, the deputy returning officer can ask some questions, and can even push the questioning even further.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Some members
Oh, oh!
11:40 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
This kind of thing could get past the monitoring.
Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, I want to wish Mr. Kingsley good luck in his new endeavours.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
We'll conclude the first round and start a second round. It looks like we might have a lot of time.
Monsieur Proulx.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingsley, thank you for so many years of service.
You will not be surprised to hear that although you must have a few minor faults, I am not aware of them. You have great qualities, and I hope that you successor will have the same kind of qualities. Although I am still young, I have known two Chief Electoral Officers, namely yourself and Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, whom I knew more personally because we were colleagues at the Club Richelieu.
Like Mr. Hamel, you are a very frank and straightforward man. When you were questioned as a witness by the committee, we often found that you gave lengthy answers in a roundabout way. It was certainly your way of gaining a few minutes of reflection before giving us a final answer. Nevertheless, your answers always told us exactly where we were going. I offer you my thanks.
I will not wish you good luck, because you already have the luck and the skills. I wish you every success with your new challenges.
I have two questions for you. The first question is the one that everyone in this room wants to ask you since you said that you were leaving. Now, I dare to ask you that question. Why are you leaving your job before the end of your mandate?
Secondly, what would be the 30 pieces of advice that you would give to your successor?
11:40 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Let me begin by explaining the reason why I resigned. I have been thinking of leaving my job for the past three or four years. There have been opportunities. As I thought them over, I was told that I could not leave.
This time, I seized the opportunity. I did not ask for it, it was offered to me. The organization asked whether I was available. I gave the same answer as the one I gave to the journalists who put this question to me many times. Although the organization was not making an offer and was only inquiring about my availability, I still wanted to be in a position to accept its offer as well as to give eight weeks notice before my resignation. Eight weeks is no small matter.
Obviously, I took a chance, because the organization could have changed its mind, in the course of its selection process. I had to show due diligence to meet the organization's requirements. I wanted to be in a position to accept the offer without getting trapped again. In fact, it was argued that I could not leave at a time like this. That was what prompted my decision.
Now we can wonder about what could have happened had that not been the case. But that would only be speculation. I felt confident. I do not know whether this is a quality or a defect, but there you have it.
I offered some general advice to my successor when Ms. Malloy, of the Hill Times, asked me a similar question. I advised him to become familiar with electoral management as soon as possible, because there could be an election any time.
I am aware of the positions that the different parties express from time to time, and I find that they are entirely reasonable. However, the Chief Electoral Officer cannot afford to stick to one single approach. That is what I did up to last Friday, the last day of my mandate. I made all the necessary decisions in case an election is called in the near future. I did not wait for my successor to take over. I gave the necessary authorizations to hire more personnel to prepare various aspects of the process. The authorizations can always be revoked, but tardiness in making these decisions could have a serious impact on the organization's state of preparedness.
This is the main piece of advice that I gave and obviously, I can assure the committee and my fellow citizens that I offer all my support to Mr. Mayrand for as long and for as many times as he wants. It is up to him to decide.
Elections Canada is an excellent organization with excellent workers who know what they are doing. It will be up to my successor to decide exactly how he organizes and structures his time to hear and learn what I have to tell him.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for appearing today, Mr. Kingsley.
I want to pick up on the sentiments being expressed by all colleagues around the room and offer my sincere thanks and congratulations. I did that privately before the meeting, but I'd like to say that publicly.
As Mr. Godin indicated, we haven't always agreed. Sometimes things became quite heated when you appeared before the committee on difficult issues you had to deal with and the committee had to struggle with. In fact I would suggest you're probably sitting there in a bit of shock that you have nothing but accolades coming at you, as opposed to some very pointed questions.
All that's in the past. I do sincerely wish you all the very best in your future endeavours. There's no doubt in my mind that given the skills and qualities you've shown in your 17 years as a CEO for our nation, you will continue to do great things in whatever you undertake.
Having said that, I'd like to pose a couple of questions. The first one Monsieur Godin touched on, which is Bill C-31.
I've always believed there's a delicate balance in any democracy regarding the right of every citizen to vote. Hopefully every citizen in our democracy believes that fervently and passionately. Having said that, I also strongly believe that every citizen has a responsibility as well. It isn't up to governments or Elections Canada to go to inordinate lengths to ensure that every single citizen is on the voters list. I believe there is responsibility that comes with citizenship, if you will. I think that all too often we take our rights for granted in this country and we don't pay much attention to our responsibilities.
Certainly you, in the time you have spent internationally, and the many colleagues who have served as election monitors in other countries, have seen that other countries' citizens--especially perhaps at a time when these rights have been denied to them--take their responsibility very seriously. I've heard stories of people who walked for hours in the blazing sun and stood in line to cast a ballot. Those people will go to inordinate lengths to ensure they can vote.
As we're parting company, I would like you to express your views on that delicate balance, which all of us recognize exists, between our right as citizens to vote but also our responsibility to take some personal responsibility to ensure that as individuals we protect that right.
The other issue is whether there is more that Canada can be doing internationally. Is there more than what we're already doing to promote and assist democracies, whether it's our efforts in Afghanistan or your efforts in Iraq and things like that, that you see we could do to promote that in future initiatives?
11:50 a.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the honourable member for his kind words. I'm touched by them, because I know that some of the meetings were not always much of a love-in. As a matter of fact, the thought ran through my mind that I should have left more often.
With respect to that fine balance between state responsibility and individual responsibility, I happen to be a fervent believer that the answer to that lies in Parliament and the statutes that Parliament passed. It's not in the hands of Elections Canada. What Elections Canada has an obligation to do is tell the committee this is going to be the consequence of this, or this is going to be the consequence of that, or here's how we think you can handle this situation.
I've always stayed away from making the basic judgment about whether it's the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. I think that in this country--it's an incredibly strong democracy--the answer lies in your hands. And I've always said that when I've appeared before the committee. It's the committee that recommends changes to the statute through bills that are presented, and Parliament passes that. To me, that was supreme, and that's been my orientation.
So how do we handle that balance? I've given advice on some of the problems that are going to be raised. You're going to see through the documents that my successor will be providing that Parliament will make that balance through the statute that it will pass. The Chief Electoral Officer will simply salute and say yes, we'll implement that--once you have all that advice.
With respect to the international scene, I did appear before the committee dealing with international affairs, chaired by Mr. Sorenson. In terms of democracy development, not only electoral democracy development, but other facets as well.... And there's a movement afoot now with the Department of Foreign Affairs and with CIDA to create what we call a democracy council, inviting Elections Canada to participate. In all the years I've been there, when we started to see the Iron Curtain tumble and countries--not only the Iron Curtain countries, but the others that were in Africa, for example--hiding behind that curtain saying we have to get on with the new way of thinking here, I've often felt that there was more that we could do.
But it wasn't Elections Canada's mandate to staff up to do the promotional stuff. It was our responsibility to respond, and our responsibility to respond was...not severely hampered, but I always took into consideration the question: Where are we in Canada? Can we afford to do this type of thing? My priority was always Canada, and I never accepted an international assignment unless I felt we could do it without hampering in any way what we had to deliver for Canadians. We always knew where the bread was buttered; it's buttered in Canada.
But this thrust.... I gave similar remarks the other evening when there was a session organized with these people and the Georgian delegation was here. What I said was that there should be within the envelopes of financing in those organizations something that relates directly to democracy development, rather than having it face all of the challenges that come within organizations for funding for other ongoing projects. It's the nature of a bureaucracy to do this. What you have to do is set up a structure that allows a specific amount to be allocated. It's not a large amount, in my books, that would be required to do that. Initially, I felt $1 million a year for Elections Canada would have produced three to four times the results that we're able to produce.
So that's a long answer to your question, sir.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you very much. We went a little bit over there, but I felt we had the time.
Madame Picard, and then I have Mr. Reid.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Kingsley, I read that you implemented the process for appointing returning officers. I would like to know how it was done and what criteria you were looking for.