Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

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

On the jurisdiction?

[Marc Mayrand]

It depends on the number of electors. It's a percentage, an amount of money per elector. It's around 50¢, but for a more precise amount, I would have to come back to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayrand, I have one single question. It has to do with the funding of umbrella referendum committees. You referred to them in you presentation.

Perhaps the revised Referendum Act should consider accounting for third party expenditures. In Quebec, last time there was a referendum, in 1995, there was a serious problem in this regard.

I believe you are originally from Montreal. You may recall that three days before the 1995 referendum, there was a gigantic love-in in the downtown core of Montreal. People from all over Canada came to tell us how much they loved us and how important it was for Quebec to remain within Canada.

We often see that over here. Our friends from all parties and all provinces regularly tell us how much they love us and to what extent they do not want Quebec to separate from Canada.

At the time, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines had offered $99 return airline tickets. VIA Rail train tickets from Toronto and Ottawa, as well as some bus company tickets, were being sold at rock-bottom prices. I will spare you the details about the cost of phone calls. As a lawyer, I do not know how someone was able to get my phone number from the Bar Association, but I received a phone call from a Vancouver lawyer. I asked him how he knew that I was a lawyer, because my name is not in the phone book. As far as I am concerned, phone numbers are private information. In any case, that is the Quebec Bar Association's problem. This lawyer had called me to tell me how much he loved me and how important it was to him that I remain Canadian. I did not ask him what his sexual orientation was. I was happy to hear that he loved me.

In short, there were phone calls, and members of all professions experienced this. I am giving you this example because I am a lawyer, but doctors, engineers, people from all professions received loving phone calls from all over Canada.

So, my question is whether third party expenditures would be accounted for under a maximum allowable amount for each of the two sides, the “for” and “against” or the “yes” and “no”. Is there a way to account for these expenditures?

[Marc Mayrand]

I would summarize by saying that in the amended act, there should be a definition of acceptable expenditures and of the type of reporting or accounting that must be made of these expenditures. That is how third party expenditures are handled during elections, by and large. I would assume that at the conclusion of the committee's work, that would be included in a referendum act.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson, it's great to have you here visiting us today.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's good to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Five minutes for you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I realize how carefully you're walking around giving educational answers versus an opinion versus trying to participate in the debate. I respect that. I'll just ask my questions. If it crosses the lines, just say so and I'm good with that.

I want to be clear on the notion of simultaneous referendums. On a scale of one to ten, ten being wonderful and one being lousy, what are your thoughts?

[Marc Mayrand]

From my perspective as an administrator, I would suggest that it's much more efficient to run concurrent events. Given the cost of an event at the federal level, I think there would be substantial savings if we were to have concurrent events.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

There are some around the table who are not as keen on public financing of debates. Some of us feel strongly about limiting the influence of money. People have a right to participate, but what we don't want is that those who tend to have more money have more democracy or more say in the democratic process.

This may be one of the areas on which you can't answer. In the interest of democracy and not allowing money to overly influence the outcome of any referendum, how much, as a percentage, should be public participation versus public financing? Should it be 50-50 overall? Should the bulk of it come from taxpayers?

[Marc Mayrand]

I brought this matter to this committee for consideration given the significant evolution of the political financing regime for elections over the last 20 years.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, some of us like that.

[Marc Mayrand]

I brought to the attention of the committee, for the committee's consideration, the fact that limits on contributions are quite different for an election and for a referendum. Spending limits for committees, under the current referendum regime, are quite different from what exists for third parties during elections. So there is obviously a variance and a divergence between the two financial regimes provided by the two statutes.

I brought it to the attention of the committee, given the evolution of political financing over recent years, so it could consider whether the regime in place for referendums, which was set out in 1992, still reflects, from a public policy perspective, the view of Parliament.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful. I appreciate your answers. They are very wholesome.

Could you help me understand a little more about the background to the Libman decision? You make reference that this needs to be taken into account. I'm sure that you already have done that in some way. Specifically, can you outline that decision and its implications for our deliberations?

[Marc Mayrand]

Mr. Libman was an elector in Quebec during the 1992 referendum, which was governed by Quebec legislation. He argued that the mandatory requirement, under the Quebec legislation, that he had to be part of an umbrella committee on either side infringed upon his freedom of expression and his freedom of association. After fulsome consideration, the Supreme Court ruled that his individual right to freedom of expression and freedom of association was infringed upon by the provisions in the legislation.

I'm not familiar with all that followed, but I believe that Quebec's Referendum Act was amended afterwards to factor in the consideration of the Supreme Court.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you help me understand what that change was? What did they change to take into account that ruling? What was in place, in layperson's terms, and what did they amend it to as a result of Libman?

[Marc Mayrand]

I believe you will hear from my colleague from Quebec later this month. My understanding is that they reviewed the definition of expenses that could be incurred and introduced a new category of eligible electors who could incur certain expenses, as defined by the statute.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Did that result in more...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your time is up, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fine.

Thank you for your answers.

[Marc Mayrand]

I mentioned 1992. I believe it was the 1995 referendum.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It was 1992 when the legislation came in.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll go to Mr. Cuzner.