Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, colleagues. Let's begin our meeting.

Thank you all for coming out.

I want to advise members that our meeting this morning will be held in public.

We have the pleasure once again to have Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the past—that's hard to say, actually—the past Chief Electoral Officer.

As members know, but for the record I will tell everyone, Mr. Kingsley served 17 years as the Chief Electoral Officer, and his position ended on February 17. Lots of 17s in there, but I'm sure you're not 17, so we'll pass on the next possibility.

I understand Mr. Kingsley does not necessarily have an opening statement, but I welcome you to the committee this morning. The committee has asked for a wrap-up meeting, so we will open the floor.

We'll keep our format to our rounds of questioning, although it is a little bit more casual that our tend-to-be-formal meetings. But we will stick with our rounds of questioning, eight minutes first round, and see how it goes from there.

Mr. Owen, the floor is yours.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not sure that I need eight minutes, but in this public forum I would like to express our deep appreciation for the work Mr. Kingsley has done for the last 17 years in the service of our country through the most basic and fundamental structure, which is our electoral process, and well beyond Canada's borders, in working in so many different countries to spread our experience and to learn as well from him and his colleagues how precious what we have here is, but also to see the extraordinary enthusiasm people in newly democratizing countries bring to their electoral process when they're given this opportunity for the first time. I think his experiences, as he's talked publicly of them over the years, provide a great lesson for Canadians in what we have and what we must treasure and what we must use.

In thanking Mr. Kingsley, I could mention that one reflection of the fine state with which he is leaving Elections Canada is the speed and ease and unanimity with which his successor, Mr. Mayrand, was approved by this committee and the House of Commons.

Perhaps, Mr. Kingsley, I could just pose the question. Since we've just finished in the House with Bill C-31 on voter integrity, could you comment on the apparent—and perhaps it's just apparent and it's not accurate—greater scrutiny that is applied in newly democratizing countries with their first electoral experiences, in terms of voter identification and protection against abuse? We have had some very interesting and challenging discussions here and in the House about whether we were going too far, whether we were putting too many impediments, whether the bar was too high. Yet it seemed at times that what we were suggesting, with your recommendation, as more stringent tests of identity proof still fell short of processes we recommend to other countries designing their first electoral process.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity to appear before you as an ordinary citizen.

In all seriousness, it has always touched me profoundly to come to this committee and render account for what Elections Canada did and did not do. It's in the same spirit that I approach this opportunity.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the excellent letter you sent to me on behalf of the committee. I shall cherish it, in light of the 17 years to the day that I spent in the position. When I gave my eight weeks' notice, I wasn't conscious of the fact that it was going to be exactly 17 years.

On Bill C-31 and the international scene, one must remember that when going to another country to provide advice, one is not selling a system or selling Canadianism; one is sharing values. When it's a newly emerging democracy or a democracy that used to exist but was taken over, smitten, and is being brought back, there's an element of distrust at the core of what they're trying to do. That is the reason why there's such a fundamental difference between what Canada has and what new democracies and newly re-emerging democracies usually give themselves.

When the Iraqis visited Canada during the election, they were surprised that there was no need for ID at the polls, because the international community, the United Nations, had told them they needed that. These were board members from the Iraqi electoral commission. Some of them went back with the idea that they wanted to look at that again. I'm sharing that with you because it's something they had never thought of, but they knew they had something to overcome. That is an important difference.

I want to add one thing about Bill C-31 that I think needs to be said. Parliament has decided to address the question of ID at the polls. I've always said that was fair, but proof of address at the polls may prove to be more problematic, and you'll want to review with my successor how that's going to work.

The experience Canada has is limited in that respect. In the city of Toronto, if you don't have proof of address you can swear yourself in at the poll; you don't need to have somebody else in line who's able to do it. From the statistics they provided to us, about 5% of the people had to go through that process. At the federal level, would 5% of the people have to go back home to get proof of address that they did not bring with them to the polls?

So I wanted to share that with the committee. You might want to look at that in more detail with my successor, because some of this research only came in after you put together Bill C-31.

I also want to mention that the letter on the pieces of ID recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer is ready to come to you. My commitment was that it would come here the moment Bill C-31 received third reading. It wasn't supposed to come before that because we did not know how Bill C-31 was going to come out in third reading. That letter is ready, and obviously the people at Elections Canada will have to decide about sending it and when. All the work was done in that respect, and it's just waiting to be sent and for your review.

I would look at the address situation as a committee. If 5% or even only 1% of the people don't bring the necessary proof of address with them, how do you address that? Do you send them back home to get another piece of ID? Right now they will have to find someone in line to attest to who they are, and that person will need to have all the necessary proof of ID and address as well.

So I just thought I'd bring that to your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Owen. I think we have about 40 seconds left. Maybe we'll just move to our next questioner.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, on behalf of the Conservative Party, I also want to add my congratulations to you on your new position, and also an official thank you for all the hard work you've done on behalf of Canadians in the electoral system for the past 17 years.

I often have said that your position is probably one of the most thankless jobs that a person could have in Canada, because from time to time you're always going to be getting complaints and criticisms from individuals, from political parties. It always seems to me that in jobs like yours, where you do yeoman service on behalf of ordinary Canadians, as well as political parties, you always hear the complaints but never the thank you. So I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada to say thank you for all of the work. I think you've conducted yourself over the 17 years in a manner that befits the position. You've conducted yourself and your affairs in a manner of impartiality and professionalism that is absolutely required for that position. So good on you, Dr. Kingsley, and good luck to you.

I do have a question, though, and we've spoken of this before. I understand that this will be your personal opinion now that you're a private citizen, so I'm not looking for anything that would be the official position, obviously, of Elections Canada, but it's something that's been a little confusing to me.

We spoke just before the meeting. We have a situation in our party where we have what should be considered a convention, a campaign training school that's coming up in the next couple of weeks. My question would be this. If a registered EDA--electoral district association--were to pay the registration fees on behalf of a couple of delegates, would that be considered, in your opinion, a contribution or a transfer of money from the EDA to the party? This would be out of their own resources. This would be a transfer or flow-through money from a person who pays $300 to the EDA, and then the EDA pays $300 on their behalf for the registration fees. This would be out of the EDA's own resources, and they pay the registration fees for a couple of delegates to this convention.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, if I were still in office, I would ask my people to look into the following points--one of which you've already addressed--before answering the question. Where does the money come from? Was it part of the funds that were there already? And the other question I would ask would be whether any of those funds are from corporate, union, or association funds, because there's an interdiction from passing those through from the EDA to a political party. The last thing I would ask is whether this is the kind of transfer that is permissible between these two entities. Based on that, then I would give you the advice, from what I understood you to say, that it would be okay so long as the two other conditions, over and above the one that you stipulated, were okay. And if they said yes, that is an appropriate one, but I can tell you that I don't remember specifically if that is entitled as such.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I do want to thank you very much, before I forget. I also forgot to mention how deeply touched I was by the thanks that were addressed to me by Mr. Owen and by you, sir. That touches me deeply, especially since it's all part of the public record here. To have served Canada and Canadians is a noble pursuit, I can tell you this. So thank you.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Sir, whatever praise you receive from this committee today is well deserved.

I'll cede my time to Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Again, I will offer you congratulations. I just love your attention to detail, making sure it was exactly 17 years. It's the level of detail we've seen from you on all of the topics.

I'd like to just throw it open and give you the opportunity to talk about the job you're heading to, and tell us all, and all Canadians, what you're planning to do next.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I should first of all mention to you that I was looking for a snowstorm in which to walk before making my decision.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

But I had to make it anyway.

The position to which I'm going as president and chief executive officer is an NGO, a non-governmental organization, non-profit organization, situated in Washington, D.C. It does work internationally. Its budget is between $40 million and $50 million U.S. a year. The funding is on a project-specific basis. So if a government wants an organization to go and help a particular country develop an aspect of or a total electoral system.... For example, IFES was involved in organizing the Iraqi elections; they were part of the United Nations group that was there. There is work that's done in Latin America in different countries. If you want an education program, and an electorate, for example, during an electoral process in Haiti.... Or IFES will also do observation for a particular event because of its credibility. So that's what I'll be doing.

IFES is situated in about 15 offices around the world now, on a project-specific basis. It's not there forever. When the money runs out, the people come back, and that's it. So people are working on a contract basis. About half the staff are in Washington. I'll be travelling, I would suspect, in some parts of the world to achieve this. So that's the type of business that it is.

Most of the funding comes from the American equivalent to CIDA; it's called USAID. There is some that comes from European countries, and there is some that comes from funding agencies in the States, principally, that like to see this kind of work being done around the world.

I'm already starting to have ideas on further thoughts about how to pursue these things, and how to make it grow, and so on and so forth. Obviously, the attraction for me is that I'll be working in an area that has become very rewarding for me in a personal sense, because of the work we did around the world, especially what we did in Iraq and what we did in Haiti. There were a lot of untold stories about Iraq, but they were extremely gratifying--very dangerous, obviously, but extremely gratifying, and the work in Haiti as well.

So all of that is to say that I'll be focusing on that, as opposed to the details of the Canada Elections Act, to come back to the detailed comment that you made.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Well, congratulations and good luck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Madame Picard.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, it is my turn to thank you ever so much for your 17 years of work dedicated, to democracy. I have always appreciated your openness, and your willingness to come before us to explain the intricacies of the Elections Act, and your vigilance in suggesting amendments to the act to enhance the voice of democracy. Thank you very much.

I was dismayed when I heard that you were leaving us. I gather that this may be a part of your career plan. I venture to presume that you have new work to do. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I really want to thank you. We really appreciated your cooperation and the work you did.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Thank you very much.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Have you any comments regarding the limits of the Chief Electoral Officer's power, and regarding the vexations that you had to endure in the course of the past 17 years?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I did not understand your question. Are you talking about limits?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes. Have you any comments about the limits imposed on the Chief Electoral Officer's power or on the impossibility of avoiding certain vexations because they stem from the legislation whose amendment requires a lengthy process?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank everyone once again for their kind words. You have my gratitude.

I believe that I tabled three major reports before Parliament, and before this very committee. In each report, I specified some important amendments that the legislation required.

There is one thing that I always found interesting. We sometimes heard that the Chief Electoral Officer was trying to seize power through recommendations. On the other hand, there were times when I appeared before the committee, and the members entrusted me with responsibilities. I would ask them if this was what they really wanted. I understood that the best way to get something was to start out by refusing it.

That being said, I do not think that there are any major shortcomings. As I said in several reports, I know that we are not there yet and that the road will not be easy. For the returning officers, the process took 17 years minus one week. In fact, although Bill C-2 had already passed, it was only on last February 10 that the governor in council authorized the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint returning officers.

The Chief Electoral Officer's ability to access the essential documents and accounts of political parties is an issue about which I already wrote to you. I understand your reluctance, but this issue will have to be settled sooner or later. This would help to keep a balance with the information that the political parties provide. In fact, the reports that the parties make are different from the reports that you file as members. You have to show evidence, whereas the parties do not have to do so. It is very difficult to make this compatible with the rule of law. Is this an irritant? Let us say that this is an issue that the committee and Parliament will have to solve.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Is this the only improvement that you propose?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I have always stated my frank opinion before this committee. In some cases, bills were amended without consulting the Chief Electoral Officer. The amendments were unexpected.

In similar cases, I recommend that the committee consult the CEO again to determine whether the amendment is as simple as it looks. An MP, as a candidate, may think that it is simple, whereas in fact, it may be very complicated for the electoral system.

This is the only thing that comes to my mind. I do not have any specific examples to offer.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You spoke earlier about Bill C-31 and the percentage of people who will not be able to vote because the act requires people to provide their address. We are talking here about 5% of the population—the poor and homeless.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I've not looked into this matter, because the reference here is to a report we received very recently from Toronto, after the amendments you made to the bill. I think it would be reasonable to predict that that is where the main problem will lie. It is not out of the question that the problem could affect others as well. People could go to the polling station without the required proof, people who have changed address but who have not brought along a copy of a bill or a lease that shows their new address, for example. The problem will come up.

How will people in the polling station ask these individuals to go back home to get a copy of a letter or some other document? The 5% figure reflects the experience in Toronto. Will it be the same throughout the country? I have no idea. If we lower the percentage to 1%, would that be acceptable? That is the question you must ask yourself as members of Parliament.