Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do you have any response, Mr. Lukiwski?

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

Certainly I'll undertake to do just that, Yvon.

Our focus right now, frankly, is on other matters, primarily the economy, but I do sense that—

[An hon. member]

And law and order.

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

Well, it's on many things. I think there is certainly an appetite for changes to this. I think we've all identified some changes that probably should be made to the act, and I think, frankly, the work of a committee study could greatly assist the government in that regard.

In direct answer to your question, Yvon, I'll certainly undertake to get an answer to see whether or not any study from this committee on this particular issue would be worthwhile.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Tilson, I have you on my list.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Oh yes, indeed.

Whether the government's going to study it or this committee's going to study it, I have a couple of questions because Mr. Mayrand is here. You've indicated that you'd rather only deal with questions that are technical, as opposed to political, I suppose. I don't know.

You have obviously looked at this issue, and my question to you is whether there are other jurisdictions anywhere in Europe, the United States, or Canada that this committee or the government could look to as a model.

[Marc Mayrand]

I would suggest four models right here in Canada. There's the one in Quebec, the one in B.C., and in Ontario. They have run referendums concomitant with elections in the last three events: two events in B.C., and one in Ontario.

There are several jurisdictions around the world that also have referendum regimes. We would have to look into those to see if there are any that maybe should be considered more closely than others.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If this committee decided to review it, would you be prepared to put forward specific recommendations for amendments?

[Marc Mayrand]

Certainly, for technical amendments. Again, in matters of public policy, I'd be happy to provide the committee with the information that's needed to assess various public policy choices. I would refrain, however, from recommending any specific public policies. I think that is a matter that belongs to the committee and Parliament as a whole.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Okay.

I have no other questions other than to say, as someone who is not a member of this committee, that I appreciate Mr. Godin's comments that sometimes you can study something, and whoever's in office may or may not look at it. We've all been on committees where that takes place. However, this obviously is an area that cries out to be changed and this is the committee to do it.

Again, as someone who can leave the room after this committee, I'd recommend that this committee look at this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's nice of you to give us work, Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's a pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you.

I was going to say two things.

In terms of other models to look at, obviously there are some provincial models in Canada. But the most useful examples are obviously the ones that are parliamentary governments, like Canada's. While the Swiss have an interesting and very distinguished record with referendums, there are some substantial distinctions, and similarly with referenda in assorted U.S. states. I used to live in Washington State. Typically, they had a number of referenda at the same time. There are some useful things to learn. But the best examples, I would think, would be in Australia, particularly since in Australia their referenda are mandatory for constitutional amendment--the Referendum Act is assumed to apply to constitutional amendments, as opposed to ordinary legislation--and New Zealand. They would be the two that seem to me to have the most relevance for our situation. So that was one thought I wanted to put out there.

The second thought I wanted to put out for the benefit of committee members is I used to be a staffer here, and I remember there's a mandatory legislative review of the Referendum Act, which was dealt with in.... I've actually used this as a metaphor for everything that's wrong with mandatory legislative reviews. It was dealt with in less than one minute in this committee back in the 1990s, and dealt with in such an obscure fashion that it wasn't until several years afterwards--I was working on Parliament Hill--that I figured out that it actually had been dealt with at all. So there's an absence. It's something that should have happened. That it was mandated by law was honoured in theory but not in practice. It would be a good idea, I think, to come back and do that.

A final thought is if we're going to take over the regulations, regulatory function, from the Chief Electoral Officer, once it's been recommended, I would say we would probably want to make sure that the regulations not simply be done by means of the government issuing them, but that there be some kind of review in committee of those regulations prior to their adoption.

In a sense, it would reverse the role, but if you looked at it in this committee, Mr. Mayrand would be brought in and asked questions prior to rather than after the fact. I think that would be beneficial. There is a reason why we don't have regulations under our electoral law: it's so that the party in power can't manipulate them. I think the same thing would apply to a lesser degree but nonetheless would apply to some degree to a referendum. It would be valuable to make sure that they can meet the sniff test before they go into effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are there any questions of witnesses?

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want my question to be ruled inadmissible. It doesn't concern the Referendum Act and it may be of interest to all colleagues.

Mr. Mayrand, for when does the act provide for the electoral boundaries review? The last time, we conducted an exercise. Mr. Reid and Mr. Godin sat on the subcommittee with me. I know the boundaries are redrawn following the 10-year census, for the election that follows. Whatever the case may be, I would like to prepare psychologically for that quite tiresome exercise.

You like me so much, you were delicate enough not to rule my question inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Such a profound question. We'll allow it today.

[Marc Mayrand]

The electoral boundary review process will begin once we've received the 2010 census results. Very notionally, we should receive those results in the spring of 2011, which will trigger the review of electoral boundaries across the country.

On our side, we've started to plan for the exercise starting in 2010, in terms of geographic products, and to see how we will support the commissions in the exercise that should be conducted in 2011.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Now that we've started to disregard the Standing Orders, let's continue.

This is interesting since we have a little time and it's worth it to use Mr. Mayrand's knowledge while he's here. At the same time, it gives the committee a chance to discuss the subject. I was talking about this problem with Mr. Lukiwski earlier.

I agree with Mr. Guimond; a major study has been conducted. As I was saying, we mustn't do any work for nothing, without knowing whether the government is ready to move the bill forward. We've conducted a major study on this; we've worked months and months, but we have to remember the reason for this study.

In the last commission, it was the first time in Canada that this kind of case wound up in court, and the court decided. For example, in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst—those who were here may remember it—Elections Canada had taken a group of francophone voters from the Acadie—Bathurst region and transferred them to the Miramichi region. The people protested loudly; it was incredible. There were demonstrations; postcards were sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He answered that he did not work at Elections Canada. There were all kinds of things. The case went to court and the court ruled that there had been a violation on the grounds of a community of interest. The community of interest means something; it isn't just figures. In the way the commission saw it, if there were 80,000 persons in one riding, its neighbour should have roughly the same number. In Elections Canada's view, it's unacceptable for one riding to have 86,000 persons and another 52,000. So the decision was made to take those people and throw them into another riding. That's when the court said that there was no community of interest between the two.

I'm going to come back to what I was saying. We conducted a study on the subject and submitted recommendations. That's one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would like us to consider again because there was a report in the House. We could add it to the committee's work or, in the steering committee, we could consider examining it as part of future business. We should start studying that in advance. Mr. Mayrand says that new figures will be published in 2010 and 2011. So this is a project we should undertake now to make sure we have regulations. Things didn't go well at that time. All the political parties were unanimous on those recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand, and I love the enthusiasm of members looking for work for this committee. We have gone a little far afield of the Referendum Act. Certainly the steering committee will now remember that we've had this conversation, and as we move closer to the redistribution discussions, we'll have to have those again.

Mr. Plamondon, do you have a question for our witness?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Since we have the time and the opportunity to hear from you, sir, and since we're taking the liberty of deviating slightly from the agenda, perhaps you'll allow me to ask you a question. Quite some time ago, you conducted a number of investigations concerning members of Parliament. We've heard nothing further about that. Are the investigations still under way? Will they lead to prosecutions? What has happened with the entire controversy that caused over certain candidates or elected members? Where does the matter stand?

[Marc Mayrand]

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

You don't want to answer?

[Marc Mayrand]

There are two aspects. The policy and the constant position we've adopted are not to comment on ongoing investigations. The results of completed investigations are posted on the Elections Canada website. You can see the cases in which there have been prosecutions, the results of those prosecutions, the cases in which there have been compliance agreements, and so on.