Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll bring the meeting to order. This morning is our public meeting, and I thank you all for coming.

I'm very pleased to have met Mr. Kingsley. Although we've had some conversations on the phone, today is the first time we've met.

It's an absolute pleasure to have you here, Mr. Kingsley. I do note that you've been the Chief Electoral Officer for 16 years, which I find extremely impressive and very good.

Perhaps you can just briefly introduce yourself and then introduce the people you have with you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Through our earlier discussion several weeks ago, this invitation was made to me. I jumped at the opportunity, as I always do, to appear before this committee. This is the primary committee before which I appear and before which I tell all. I look forward to the opportunity this morning to tell all whenever I have an answer to provide.

By the way, we did discuss this morning what you thought the members may raise with me, so the members will have to bear with me if I don't have a full answer. This will be more of a memory bank day than a full briefing day.

I have been the Chief Electoral Officer for 16 years, and I find that to be very long. I am a hospital administrator by trade. I have been in public service, in one form or another, practically all of my life. I consider hospital work to be public service as well. I don't distinguish between one form of public service and another.

Joining me today on the witness stand is Diane Davidson, the deputy chief electoral officer and the chief legal counsel. She is known on the Hill because this is where she started her career. She was here for 20 years working alongside colleagues who are behind you and by your side. I think she joined Elections Canada in October of 2000, just on the verge of the October election that year.

I don't intend to spend a lot of time, but I do want to make a few comments, starting with the fact that I have brought along with me a copy of the Auditor General's report on my office. Of course, having been here 16 years, there must be a reason why I'm doing that, and the reason is very simple: the auditor in charge of the file told me that in the 18 years he's been working on files in the Auditor General's office, this was the best report.

This is a reflection of the kind of dedication that I think I've brought to all of my jobs in serving the public, with a concern at the same time about the means I use to achieve those ends and the money we spend. It's not our money, and we're fully cognizant of that. I thought I would bring that report along because it bears witness to that. Frankly, I felt personally vindicated, especially since there have been other audit reports that have been less flattering of other people.

I would be more than pleased to pursue any topic that members wish to raise about the responsibilities of my office. There are some new members, and for them this will be the first opportunity. There is also a good number of people I've met here before, and with whom I've had frank and honest exchanges at this committee--right?

We're still wrapping up the 39th general election. It takes time. While we're at it, I'll mention something that is usually of interest to members. We expect that we will have paid members of Parliament and other candidates their reimbursements, if they file on time and without mistakes, by the middle to end of November of this year. It takes us a number of months to process files. Of course, the closer to reality the filings are, and to the statute, the faster the reimbursement.

I usually like to put that out. At a past meeting, members were concerned because they had not received their payments before the last election. Well, by law--the law passed by your predecessors--I must be satisfied with every report, not just a sampling but every report. Therefore I require that my people be satisfied with everything that is reported.

My report on the 39th general election will be with you on May 11, the statutory date by which it is due. I'll publish the official poll-by-poll results the same day.

“On the same day, I will also send the electoral map entitled “Canada's 39th Legislature“. It will indicate the election results. It is an excellent map, colour-coded by party.

I will stop there with my opening remarks. I know full well that committee members are more interested in asking questions. I now defer to you. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley.

Welcome, Diane; I appreciate your being here as well.

We are going to open for rounds of questions. Historically the committee has been a little bit less formal, for the most part, in its rounds, but we'll start with the standard first round and allot each party seven to eight minutes. Then we'll open up for a second round. If we have time we can go to a third.

Is that acceptable to everybody?

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

Mr. Chair, what length of time are you recommending for the second round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have seven to eight minutes for each party for the first round, so maybe five minutes. Does that sound reasonable?

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The first round is open to any member of the Liberal Party.

The chair recognizes Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley, for your presentation. I have a couple of questions to ask concerning the recommendations you made after the 38th general election.

As far as checks are concerned at polling stations to determine a voter's eligibility, you noted that section 144 should be amended to make it possible to require a statement under oath or a statutory declaration from the voter to prove his or her eligibility, and to determine whether there is reasonable doubt as to the voter's citizenship.

Such evidence may be required when there are doubts concerning an individual's identity, however, that does not apply when there are doubts as to the citizenship or age of an individual. I would like you to explain at greater length why you want the act to be amended to include this authority.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

The reason is very simple. I am trying to find an answer to the concerns raised by the members of this committee. We are talking here about the possibility of turning up to vote at a polling station without holding Canadian citizenship. This is why I made a recommendation so that the citizenship of such individuals may be established, or at least so that we can ensure such persons provide written evidence of their citizenship.

I have not heard it said that there was a major problem in this respect. The main reason I wanted to make a recommendation with regard to this power, which is not included in the act, is that I am an officer of Parliament, and attempting to meet the requirements of members is part of my mandate.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

My next question is related to the recommendation you wish to see implemented. On page 49 of your report, one reads the following:

Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms - Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 38th General Election.

In the very last paragraph, you're talking about verifications that you've actually done of payers of Canadian tax who do income tax filing, who check off the box that says “As a Canadian citizen, I authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to provide my name, address, and date of birth to Elections Canada for the National Register of Electors”, and you've subsequently done a verification to see what percentage of them are non-citizens but actually identify themselves as citizens.

In the last paragraph, you say that “after the 2001 modification of the T1 General form...173,000 individuals expressly confirmed that they were in fact non-citizens, despite the fact that they had originally checked the income tax box reserved for citizens”. And you follow up with recommendations that it should be an affirmative statement rather than a statement that implies, etc., to try to correct that.

Given that such a high number of taxpayers check off that box, stating “As a Canadian citizen” when in fact they're non-citizens, are you confident that requiring only a written affidavit or a solemn affirmation of eligibility at the poll would be sufficient to ensure that each and every person for whom there's a doubt that they're a Canadian citizen or there's a doubt, if they are a Canadian citizen, that they are of legal age...that it would be sufficient to reduce to virtually non-significant numbers non-citizens who may end up voting?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, the reason I am satisfied that it would be satisfactory is that the very statistics the member has just quoted make it such that we do not add names to the lists of electors from the income tax file, because too many of them are contaminated. That data bank is contaminated, in a sense, because too many non-Canadians check off that box.

Now, I want to make sure people appreciate that the people who are checking off that box are not lying; they're not purposely lying. The problem is that the one box contains two questions, and what this demonstrates is that we've been confusing the electors by asking for one answer to two questions. That's why I've recommended that there should be two questions on that questionnaire: one that says “I am a Canadian citizen”, and another one that says “and I wish to share my data”. The only thing we do now with the income tax file is update the information; that is to say, if you move from one address to another, we change your address, and that's all we do.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Kingsley, I understand that. The point I was trying to make is that, thankfully, you do a verification and you have done that, so you have been able to screen out 173,000 people.

So then my question was, are you confident that giving the returning officers the authority at the actual polls--advance polls, special polls, regular voting day polls--to question a person and require that this person swear an oath or sign a written affidavit will be sufficient to screen out non-citizens who inadvertently might want to vote?

I'm not talking about someone who consciously knows they're a non-citizen and knows they're not allowed to vote and is willing to commit a fraud on the electoral system. I'm just asking if you are satisfied that it would be sufficient, or do you think that if there is a reasonable doubt as to the person's eligibility, that level of proof should be higher than just a sworn affidavit? It might be the birth certificate plus other pieces of identification, or it might be the passport, for instance, or the citizenship card, so that if there is a reasonable doubt that a person is a citizen, or if there's a reasonable doubt that the person is 18 years old, one might require some secure piece of identification that actually gives the birth date.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I am satisfied.

I think I understood the purport of the question, but I thought I would add the other element. I didn't want people to think that non-Canadians were being added willy-nilly to the list, because we don't do that.

I am satisfied. I can't imagine people walking around with their birth certificate just in case they're asked a question at the polls. I can't imagine people starting to do that. It brings us into another realm, and we may wish to discuss that as well, which is ID at the polls.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]...afterwards? Would you see that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Could we get a short answer on that? I want to move on to the next questioner. We can come back to this, but is there a short answer?

[Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

I want to make a small point. When a person makes a sworn affidavit they do sign a document, and on that document it is stated that they can be prosecuted for lying. There is a warning, a deterrent, in terms of making a false statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx, I know you had your hand up, but I'm going to move on to the Bloc. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson.

From the outset, I should say that we are currently compiling, once again, a list of the horror stories from the last election campaign. And I am deliberately calling them horror stories rather than mistakes. I know you will not take my remarks personally, because neither you nor the members of your team can be held responsible for the irregularities which have occurred. However, it is important nevertheless to inform you of them. That has been the Bloc Québécois' tradition since 1993. We are [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulties] a different tone.

I would simply like to ask you, for the purposes of this discussion, whether it is normal for a returning officer to give up to five voting kits to one single individual who has not even have had to identify himself. In other words, a person may leave with five kits or even a box full of kits. You have to ask yourself: is that desirable in a democratic process?

There were people on the voters' list who were registered under their accountant's address and not their real residential address. During advance polling in my riding, in Baie-Saint-Paul poll, a clerk appointed by the Liberals went right in the middle of the whole process and photocopied voters' lists at the local Jean Coutu pharmacy. We know that there are people appointed by the returning officer. Does that mean that the person acting as deputy returning officer has to wage war with the clerk appointed by the Liberals? Should she tell such a person that that should not be done? Should there be staff members responsible for telling others that that is completely forbidden? That does basically raise a number of issues, and we will have a lot of other issues to broach with you all as well. We are currently compiling the information.

We have before us what constitutes the main course: Bill C-2 on accountability, incorrectly named in French Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité, which affects the Chief Electoral Officer and us. So, I need your comments.

My first question is about Bill C-2. In order to guide us in our work, and if the chair and other committee members are in agreement, could you perhaps give us a comprehensive analysis of the bill's provisions and give us your opinion on those which impact you?

A legislative committee was struck to consider this bill. As you know, it is lengthy and includes 317 sections, proposed amendments to 40 acts, as well as two new pieces of legislation. You will not be able to testify before our committee. However, to guide us in our work and to help me in the event that I am called to sit on this legislative committee, I would like to know what you think as Canada's Chief Electoral Officer.

Can you give me a short answer on this matter?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I noted down the three or four comments you made concerning the recent election campaign and I already look forward to receiving your list of complains. We are taking this very seriously, just as we did after the last election. I won't answer every question you asked, since you asked me not to.

There are three main parts to Bill C-2 which affect the Election Act: the appointment of returning officers, my office being for subject to the Access to Information Act, and the consequences of the role of the Attorney General for the role of commissioner. Let me be honest with you: we are currently reviewing all of that in detail. As you said, this is a major bill which will also have a very substantial impact on the Elections Act. The three factors I mentioned before are enough to make that obvious.

Here is what I would be prepared to do. I will obviously be called to testify before the committee which would be struck as part of Bill C-2. I would like to testify there first given that that committee would be mandated for this very purpose, and then come back to you to provide additional testimony which you seem to be interested in hearing. Moreover, I'll do all of that without delay. I've never required several months' notice, nor will I require such notice in these particular circumstances. After I've testified before the legislative committee, I'll be ready to testify here concerning the issues as a whole. Your committee will not have to summon me. I'd be pleased to appear.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

At present, we are talking about eight returning officer positions. There may be more, but those are the eight I have observed across Canada. Of course, you know that the last position on the list is that of the returning officer for Louis-Hébert. The incumbent in Louis-Hébert passed away on April 18. There are other vacancies as well, including Hamilton, Yukon and others. In all, there are eight.

Section 28(4) of the Canada Elections Act states that the Governor in Council --in other words, the government -- has 60 days to appoint a new returning officer.

The government is showing some willingness. You had some reservations about Bill C-312. Here, everyone knows my tendency to boast -- but new members are not familiar with my proverbial humility. In any case, the Bloc Québécois is very happy to see that Bill C-2 provides for non-partisan appointments, something that the Bloc Québécois has been demanding for a long time. I am sure that the word I used in French -- départisanées -- does not actually exist, but it will serve as a neologism. I am talking about eliminating partisan politics from the process of appointing returning officers.

In the meantime, what is being done about those eight vacant positions? Have you already asked the Governor in Council to make a start? The legislation is not being complied with in three ridings. As for the riding of Battlefords--Lloydminster, the deadline is May 1. It would make no sense for the government to go ahead with these appointments immediately.

I would therefore like to hear your views on the transition we should be making between the current appointment process and the appointment process put forward in Bill C-2.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I continue to write to the Governor in Council every time a returning officer position becomes vacant. The current legislation continues to apply. It is the only legislation that allows me to take action.

Moreover, I do not believe that any position has gone beyond the 60-day deadline. You mentioned May 1, but we are not there yet.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The returning officer position in the riding of Hamilton-East--Stoney Creek has been vacant since November 21, 2005. It should have been filled by January 20, 2006.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

You are quite right. I take back what I said.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Forgive me.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

No, I should be the one to apologize. The deadline was indeed allowed to slide by. I think that it is now up to the Governor in Council to take action. As for myself, I complied with the provisions of the act which stipulate that I must inform the Governor in Council in writing whenever a returning officer position becomes vacant. I am waiting for new returning officers to be appointed.

Since we did have deputy returning officers in those ridings, we were able to make acting appointments. As I have already said, it is important for returning officer positions to be filled. If returning officers cannot be appointed on a permanent basis, there should at least be temporary appointments in case there are elections. With a minority government, that is much more likely than it might otherwise be.