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

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't see a real need. I mean, we're going to hold another constitutional referendum 50 years from now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Let me just play devil's advocate--

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

That's our history. Every 50 years we've held a federal referendum.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

The response to that would be that we have an opportunity to frame the best legislation we can. If it makes sense to put three in one to do broader referendums, would it not still be an improvement in governance legislation while we're in there digging around anyway?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Well, I can easily think of an advantage to doing it that way. Even though I'm not Machiavellian in makeup, I can see that it certainly would ease the transition towards referendums that go beyond constitutional matters.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If we take that step down the road, we've done the homework.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So that's a good argument, actually, to go with your recommendation, regardless of whether we broaden it or not.

I'm probably getting close. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're all good. Your timing is really good today. You're looking up at the chair right at the seven-minute mark. I'm very proud of all of you.

Ms. Foote, let's see if we can do it again.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Well, just watch me blow that one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes. Oh, sorry, this is five minutes now.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Oh, well, there you go.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Kingsley; it's good to have you here.

I'm new to the committee; I've not had the benefit of your expertise, your advice, or your experience, so bear with me.

I'm looking at the aspect of financing referendum committees. I acknowledge that it's clear here that there's no limit to the referendum expenses or to the number of committees that you can have on any one position. To me that just seems to be a recipe for....

[An hon. member]

Disaster.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

It may be disaster, but it's certainly being unfair. Where does the responsibility lie? Who does the responsibility lie with to ensure that if you're going to have a referendum, there is a balanced approach to ensure that both sides of the issue are front and centre?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

In my view, the free broadcast time is the level playing field in the Referendum Act. I like the fact that you can have multiple committees, because there are shades of yes, shades of no, and sometimes they oppose one another. They could access free broadcast time, and not all the free time was accessed the last time, so there's room there.

I've also alluded to the fact that there is now quite a fictitious limit on what a committee can spend. It's 74¢ per elector, which is humongous. I've alluded to the fact that they should be caught with the same limits as third parties now. So then you're into a maximum of 400,000. I believe that's the present limit, or something like that. If they only go for certain ridings, then you base it on the ridings. There's a limit per riding right now under the statute, with a maximum limit, I think, of 400,000, but I can't remember.

Therefore, if you do that, you start to level the playing field at the spending end as well. That's why I said you should harmonize the rules with respect to referendum committees and third parties in terms of registration, in terms of limits, and in terms of everything else.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Whose responsibility would it be to do that?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It would be the Chief Electoral Officer.

You see, under the statute now, under the Canada Elections Act, if you intend to spend more than $500 in advertising, you have to register. If you don't, you're breaking the law. People will see that you're doing ads, and one thing I really liked is that Canadians watch the system. When I was in charge, they would write and complain. We had 500 written complaints at every election. They watch. They watch what you report in your expenditures. They watch when events are being held and they ask if this event was reported or not. Some of it is for political reasons; some of it is purely out of concern for the integrity of the system. It was really quite gratifying to see that.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I'm looking at and acknowledging your position that you believe we're at a point where we could actually have a referendum question being conducted at the same time that you would have a federal election. It's interesting, because of course municipalities do this all the time, albeit on a smaller scale, but the principle is the same.

From your perspective, I would expect that one of the benefits of holding it at the same time would be a considerable cost savings.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I alluded to that, but I want to be more precise. I appreciate the question.

When I wrote to Mr. Manning I told him it would cost $10 million extra. This is as opposed to $140 million, so there's a savings of $130 million if you hold a referendum at the same time as a general election.

My colleague who is in charge now may have slightly different numbers, because I'm talking about 1993, but in terms of proportion, it gives you a fair idea. The savings are humongous because the whole machinery is there already. You don't have to re-hire the people; you don't have to re-train. It's all done; it's all there. So it's a net additional cost and it's not a lot on a $300-million cost, or whatever it is now.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Basically the same individuals would be utilized, the same buildings, everything.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

The same machinery. Everything would be the same because we run it on a riding basis. We run it with the same polls. We run it exactly as if it were a general election. By the way, when that law was being studied this committee went on TV for the first time. That was when the referendum was being held. That was good.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Based on your experience, can you think of any disadvantages to doing it?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

There are the disadvantages to which you've alluded. You're as aware of this as I am, if not more. What does it do to the election? Does it work? On the other hand, if it's an important topic it should be part of the politics of the day. During an election is when important topics should be discussed. It's perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for being here today.

I just want to follow up on this idea of having them together, because I think it makes common sense to all of us that it would reduce our need for extra resources. You mentioned earlier, if I heard you correctly, that there's no tax deduction for groups that are registering either on the yes or no side of any particular question. Is that correct?