Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

If there were a Canadian referendum soon dealing with constitutional questions, I have no crystal ball, but I would bet that some provinces would demand the right to use their own legislation to administer their referenda. That decision is a political one which is not managed by the CEO.

Do you agree that this is a political decision that should not come under the CEO?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Of course it's a political decision, because if I had had to make the decision, I would have taken a different one. I am saying this very honestly. That's why I disagree with this section of the legislation. However, I'd like this to be very clear, as soon as a federal referendum is being considered, all provinces should be entitled to the same treatment. I would like to see all those who want to hold the referendum separately be given the right to do so and that they get the same reimbursement from the federal government; not just one of them being entitled to this under a separate agreement.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

You stated that there had been a serious problem in dates: namely that the dates were not all the same, which created confusion among the electorate. In two neighbouring provinces, there could even be confusion about the dates. If each province held its own referendum, under its own legislation, would it still be a good idea to agree on some amendments so that it at least be held on the same date, which is important when there's a vote?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I can tell you straightaway that this is well nigh impossible because Ontario would have to agree with Quebec to change its dates, as then would Saskatchewan, etc. The legislatures could not respond in time; that couldn't be done. It would have to be planned well in advance and I don't see how that could be done because the decision to hold a constitutional referendum can be taken at the very end of the process as was the case last time. The decision was made in May or June.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Ideally, there should be one referendum per province and each province could administer it under its legislation and report the final result which would be the federal position. That might be simpler and would respect the legislation of each province.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't think it would be simpler, but at least the provinces should have the choice. That would be better than giving this choice to only one or two provinces, through a special agreement that is not made public.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, you're up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your attendance today. It's good to see you.

I want to clarify a couple of things. One is the issue of holding a referendum. Your position is that we ought to use one piece of federal legislation. One of the issues in front of us is whether we should do it by province, and then have a provincial total that then creates the national total, or do it with one legislation. Is it your recommendation that it be a federal piece of legislation and that national referendums be held under that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes, it is, sir.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is it your concern that to do it the other way is just impractical in terms of trying to keep them all equal?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It's also unfair.

You get 10,000 Canadians. You would have a higher number, because there's a six-month residency requirement in every provincial statute for the right to vote. There's none at the federal level. If someone went from Saskatchewan to Manitoba and was not a resident there for six months beforehand, that person would lose the right to vote. You would compound that 10,000 by a factor of probably four. Now we have 40,000 Canadians who don't have the right to vote.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It would be just because of the bad luck of when they moved.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

They have absolutely no inkling when they're moving that this will have an impact on something, and you know, those Canadians took us, the federal Elections Canada, to court. The court said that I was right in interpreting the statute. I was hoping I would lose the case, but I won the case. If they had taken the Quebec chief electoral officer to court, it might have been a different result, but who knows?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There is also the issue of whether referendums should be held simultaneously with federal elections, or not, as a matter of policy, as opposed to just happenstance. If I recall correctly--and I don't have the greatest memory--there have been pretty strong arguments on both sides. One is that it makes all the sense in the world for a small country like this to be able to do it at the same time. It's more efficient and it saves money. The other argument is that if you do them both at the same time, you're going to skew one of the two results because either the referendum question or the general election will become paramount in the minds of the parties and in the media, and it wouldn't do justice to either one. You need to keep them separate.

You probably touched on it, but could you again state your thinking on that issue?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

My thinking is that in Canada we're now sophisticated enough in terms of democracy to be able to handle two questions at the same time, one dealing with the election and the other dealing with a referendum question.

There may be some confusion and there may be some overlapping with a particular issue that one particular party is more associated with, but through the rules on financing, you can create a level playing field and maintain a level playing field. I alluded in my remarks as to how you can achieve that. Therefore, I think it's highly feasible to hold two at the same time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to pursue that a little bit, because it's one of the things the committee is going to have to grapple with. In the relatively recent experience in Ontario, where the politicians even made commitments that they weren't going to comment on the referendum, there are some people who, in reviewing what happened, believe that holding the two of them at the same time was not good, that there wasn't a sufficiently thorough debate about the referendum question because the politicians weren't engaged in it. They had agreed not to speak to the issue. Some of the review was of the opinion that had the two of them been separated, we'd have gotten a more focused public and we'd have gotten a more intelligent decision, or a more thoughtful decision. Again, what are your thoughts?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Provincial legislation cannot control the airwaves. Federal legislation can. And free broadcast time is very attractive. It's not print media that convey the messages today; it's free broadcasting time. We have the advent of the Internet and all the social networks now, and I know social networks existed for the provincial referendum, but in my view, if you can facilitate the creation of referendum committees and they gain access to 90 minutes right now, and it is fairly apportioned among them, they will do ads and they will invade the networks. It will compete with the election, obviously. I think what would happen between the two events would be more a matter of confusion than a matter of not knowing.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Would you limit the number of referendums you would allow at one time?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That is something to be considered. We don't want to be caught like California--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The Americans had this crazy--

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

—with 130 referendum questions, and people decide they will only answer 65 that day. I mean, how do you do that in an intelligent way?

I think that initially we should be concerned with one referendum at the same time as an election and see how that works. I think we're ready for it, but we'd see how it works and then see if we wanted to hold two or three at the same time.

When we do that, by the way, it will be time for us to go to voting machines so that the count can be done easily. One or two decisions can be done through a visual count at the end of the polls, but I wouldn't go beyond that. That's a separate issue.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Could you help me understand something? With regard to the rationale for stand-alone legislation for the Referendum Act and to whether we're going to leave it pertaining only to constitutional matters or whether we're going to broaden it, is it your notion to have one piece of legislation that covers the three scenarios of a regular election, a regular referendum, and two at the same time? Is that correct? Is that where you are?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If it's only the constitutional piece, why wouldn't you still go with your notion of the one legislation in three pieces, even if it was only for constitutional matters?