Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order.

I've been trying to keep time tight here. We're having some jovial time here, but the chair is willing to concede to the wishes of the committee. We did our three rounds, and I'm just sticking to the rule.

Are there any objections to allowing another three minutes for Ms. Redman?

Seeing no objections, that will absolutely be permitted.

[Karen Redman]

Thank you very much. Again, if the answers are long, I don't mind getting them in written form.

I actually wanted to ask Ms. O'Hara or Mr. Newman these questions.

Notwithstanding the discussions that have happened, in a perfect world, would the best way to effect this be to have a constitutional amendment?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm not sure which perfect world we're living in, but it seems to me that this is the best way to go about this. It's an act of the Canadian Parliament. It's the least complicated way. It's straightforward and very doable, and I think when you consider all of those, that's the best way to do it.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, and that is the political answer. I was looking for somebody who was more expert--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm quite sure they will probably have the same answer as I had.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Because they're very smart.

I have to say that I fundamentally do have huge personal problems with this, but why I find that I could support it is that I don't think this changes anything. In substance, you still have the ability of the Prime Minister of the day to go to the Governor General and ask for an election, so I think this is more window dressing than reform.

Fundamental for me, if we did go to a constitutional amendment to actually effect this so that it would have real teeth, would be the fact that members of Parliament are appointed and are really responsible to the House of Commons. So for a government, especially when we seem to be going for minority governments, to either reach an impasse or truly lose the confidence of the House, I don't see this accommodating that. To me, that's where the real accountability lies, in being responsible to the electorate. I don't see that being accommodated if this in fact substantively did fix it at a four-year interval.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll go back to the first part of your question. This is very careful in its wording in that it does not in any way fetter the discretion or the prerogatives of the Governor General and the Crown; nor would we want it to, because those powers are very, very real.

You would probably remember, back in 1985, in the provincial election of that year, that the Conservative Party, which had been in office for over four decades, had a plurality of seats in the Ontario legislature. Mr. Miller, the premier at the time, had the absolute right to meet the Ontario legislature at that particular time, but there were those who figured that this raised an interesting constitutional dilemma. If Mr. Miller, having met the Ontario legislature in a minority situation, had been defeated, it would have been within the prerogative of the lieutenant-governor at the time to refuse him a dissolution of the Ontario legislature and to then canvass, at that time, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rae to see whether they in fact could have formed a government.

So yes, there are conventions that take place, but those conventions are circumscribed by the powers that reside in the Crown, and I think that on occasion they're used.

That being said, I say woe betide the Prime Minister in a majority government--to use Mr. Proulx's example--after one year deciding that he wanted the Governor General to dissolve the Canadian Parliament. He probably would find that he wouldn't get the response that he may be looking for. With legislation on the books indicating that the election would be four years hence, he would be hard pressed to get the Governor General to use his or her prerogatives.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I do appreciate the indulgence of the committee.

So I guess if this goes through, we have a guarantee that Mr. Harper will serve until the next fixed election date.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You probably have more to say about that than we do, quite frankly, and you can talk to your colleagues in the opposition. We're governing on a month-to-month basis. Each session, we're putting forward a program, and we hope to continue with that program. So I'm asking for your support. Help us get through that program, and no doubt we'll get to 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, members, and a special thank you to the minister and his team for coming today.

I might suggest that we take a one-minute break so one team can move out and our next team of experts can move in, and then we will resume.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene the meeting. Thank you very much for keeping your break as short as you did.

I would like to welcome Mr. Kingsley and his team. It's a pleasure to have you before the committee again. It's worth noting that you received short notice to come before the committee, and we certainly appreciate that you have taken the time to prepare yourself and be here this morning.

Would you kindly introduce your team? Then we'll have a 10-minute opening statement, and then we'll proceed with the same round of questioning as we had in the first hour--five-minute rounds and as many of them as we can get in.

Mr. Kingsley, welcome.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm accompanied today by Mrs. Diane Davidson, deputy chief electoral officer and chief legal counsel; and Mr. Rennie Molnar, senior director of operations, register, and geography.

Members of the committee may recall that when I appeared on June 13 of this year I expressed my agreement with the idea of fixed-date elections. The proposed legislation would facilitate many aspects of Elections Canada's planning and operations. On June 13, I submitted a written summary of those benefits, and I have brought copies of that document for you today. I understand they've been recirculated.

I will comment on some aspects of the proposed legislation from the perspective of electoral administration, which the committee may wish to consider. As it stands now, my office plans for general elections incrementally through the setting of regular readiness dates throughout the election cycle. The frequency of these dates is necessarily greater in minority government situations. The moment there is a majority government in power, elections on a date set by statute would enable Elections Canada to plan more securely in four-year cycles, with contingencies for delivering general elections that could still occur outside the fixed date.

There are a number of operational benefits associated with fixed election dates. For example, at the issue of the writ, returning offices could be up and running with communications technology installed and staff hired and trained. This is not small. This would allow for better service to electors, and a fixed date would also allow my office a greater advance opportunity to identify and secure locations for polling stations. This would include firm commitments for access to sites that are accessible, thus resulting in improved locations and greater convenience for electors.

Knowing the date of the election in advance would also permit targeted updates of the national register of electors, done in close consultation with members of Parliament, political parties, and electoral district associations, to be performed in the month leading up to the writ being issued. It is not automatic that we would do this, but it's a possibility. This would result in a more up-to-date preliminary list of electors for candidates at the start of the election and fewer revisions to the list during the electoral period.

Holding elections at a fixed date would also be beneficial for our outreach and education programs, as well as for our advertising, which could be implemented more effectively before and during general elections. From an operational point of view, the fall--particularly the month of October--is a good time of year to have an election. It may well be the best.

It should be noted however that should the polling date fall on the third Monday of October as proposed, this would result in the advanced polls falling on the long Thanksgiving weekend.

From 2000 to 2006, turnout at advanced polls has more than doubled, from 775,000 voters to 1,600,000. This means that such a decision would probably have a real impact.

Subsection 56.2(1) of Bill C-16 provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may, if he thinks that the polling date is not suitable, including by reason of its being in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election, choose another day to recommend to the Governor in Council. Should the recommendation be accepted, the Governor in Council would have to make an order to that effect before August 1st in the year in which the general election is to be held. You're all well aware of this provision.

Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have such discretion. The authority to recommend an alternate polling day could rest with Parliament directly. Further, if the date of the election has to shift beyond a Tuesday, it would be preferable to have it moved to the next day rather than the following Monday as currently proposed.

I would like to add a few words on the current advertising practices. Treasury Board already imposes a ban on certain types of government advertising during the election period. To quote from the Government of Canada Communications Policy:

Advertising is only permitted when: an institution is required by statute or regulation to issue a public notice for legal purposes; an institution must inform the public of a danger to health, safety or the environment; or an institution must post an employment or staffing notice.

The committee may wish to consider expanding the timing of this ban to four weeks before the issuance of the writ of election. It might be deemed appropriate as well to subject political parties to this restriction.

To conclude, the proposed legislation would improve our service to electors, candidates, political parties and other stakeholders.

My officials and myself will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Wonderful. Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley.

I have no one on the list. Mr. Owen.

We are going to stay with the five-minute rounds, just to remind everybody. We probably won't have time for three rounds--for sure, two. You might want to consider that in your decisions about questioning.

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Kingsley, Ms. Davidson, Mr. Molnar, thank you for being here.

One of the most frequent concerns that come up about fixed election dates is the spectre of an American habit of having a year-long campaign and/or a year-long lame duck period, and I'm wondering if there are recommendations you can make with respect to campaign financing laws. You have made a suggestion here with respect to government advertising, and perhaps expanding it to include announcements by political parties, but can you describe a way in which those laws could be used to effectively limit at least the full-scale campaigning to a writ period?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, I think one has to take into account the differences between the American system, fundamentally, and the Canadian system. We don't have a system of primaries, and that triggers a lot of what they're doing. That's why they get involved a year ahead of time, or even more, because the primaries start to set in. We don't have that.

We do know in Canada, when it's a majority government, when the election will take place, generally. We know that it will reach the third year, generally. What we didn't know, and what we still don't know, is whether it's going to be the first six months of the fourth year or the last six months in which the election will be held. And I don't think we've seen parties precipitate themselves into advertising, even though they know it's going to happen, within that six month or the 12 months. We haven't seen that, and I don't think we'll see it because we fix the election date.

I think money is an issue, but I think there are also the mores and the fact that there's not the need for primaries to be taking place. And in the United States it's also important to remember that there are gubernatorial races, and half of the Congress, or a third of the Congress, flips over as well as the presidency. And because it's a presidency, there are also a lot of differences that would make me think there is not a major issue to be addressed here, other than for what, in my view, would be four weeks before, in terms of government advertising and possibly political party advertising. Those are the only two issues.

I think that looking at the possibility of banning that for the four weeks before would be sufficient, and it's all that will be taken. There's no need to change anything about the electoral period, the amount of moneys to be spent during the period, nothing like that. Just keep that period wholly as we do it now, or whole, as we do it now.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

The government practice now is in Treasury Board directives, as you've noted, so if we want to have that apply to opposition parties and, in effect, the government in law, we would put that in the Elections Act?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

With respect to the Treasury Board directive, the committee could let it be known to Treasury Board that this is its view, and I suspect the Treasury Board will adopt that, if this were the committee's view.

In terms of an interdiction for political parties to advertise, it is something that could be introduced in a statute.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, you heard my question to the minister a while ago and you heard him say that he did not consider holding elections on a Sunday, which would help Elections Canada in organizing polling and in a finding appropriate locations on a regular basis.

What would you think of a holding elections on a Sunday?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, the Royal Commission that reported in 1992 looked at the possibility of holding elections on a Sunday but did not recommend it. It decided not to make that recommendation because of the reaction in various parts of the country where Sunday remains a religious day that people think should not be associated with elections.

It is more a political than an administrative issue. The problem for us is that it is more and more difficult to find locations--in schools, for example--to set up polling stations. We are beginning to resolve that issue by telling school authorities that we will set up at our expense any security measures that they want to have implemented on the day of polling. I know this is not a perfect solution and that my answer is not perfect either but I do not believe that there would automatically be benefits to holding elections on a Sunday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Before asking the two questions I have for Mr. Kingsley, I wanted to suggest to Mr. Proulx that perhaps one of the reasons we see increasing levels of participation at advance polls is precisely that they're held over weekends and that to some degree the benefit you are seeking via moving to a weekend is actually already occurring at the advance polls. That would suggest that if we want to deal with this, we ought to consider having more widely spread advance polls in more convenient locations, that kind of thing. It's only a thought, but worth pursuing.

Mr. Kingsley, actually on the subject of weekend voting, and in particular on the prospect of voting occurring over the Thanksgiving weekend, when young people in particular are likely to be back home from university, I note that as part of your role.... Subsection 18(1) of the act says:

The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

Clearly, young people participate less, which suggests they may have difficulties, the most obvious of which, from my perspective, is that their addresses change more frequently. They're harder to track down and send voter cards to than are people who stay in one place. Given this situation, given the fact that, in some cases anyway, they might still be registered to vote in the constituency they have lived in until the time they moved to university, do you have any thoughts as to how you could play a role in trying to ensure that we take advantage of the new circumstance in order to get a higher rate of youth and student participation in particular?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, if residency is the issue, whether the advance poll is held that day or not, when they're back home they can go and vote in the office of the returning officer at any time. That may not be as convenient, obviously, as an advance poll because of location, but that is one possibility that is open to them. Certainly, should the bill be maintained and have the third Monday of October as the fixed date for the election, we will do what we need to do to reach out to those students and make sure they appreciate...as we do now, but obviously with particular emphasis owing to the fact that that is now the reality.

I will say one thing. The main problem with youth is not only knowledge but the fact that right now I cannot get access to their citizenship data through the Canada Revenue Agency, the check-off on the form, because we have 700,000 youth who we know are there, who we know exist, and we cannot put them on the list because we cannot affirm citizenship.

That is the main issue that I think we need to overcome to help facilitate the youth vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have one other question to throw out at the same time. I actually want to ask you something further on this.

You said in your comments that if the day of the election had to shift beyond a Tuesday, it would be preferable to have it move to the next day rather than the following Monday, as currently proposed. However, you didn't offer a rationale, and I'd like to hear your rationale.

But before you do that, I'm wondering if most young people are going to be on the tax rolls in a way that will allow you to actually capture them if you get access to the CRA's data, given the fact that many would not have paid income tax yet.