Yes.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was limit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was limit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
November 17th, 2009 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I have a quick question.
In terms of the timing of a referendum, the actual period of the referendum, do you have any suggestions on how long that period should be? An election can obviously be 37 days or it can be, as in the case of 2006, 55 days. And I can tell you that in the context of an urban setting, running a campaign over 30 days is a lot cheaper than running a campaign over close to 60 days.
What I worry about is this. We can set limits for the referendum campaigns, and then we can put it in the context of a general election and expand the time of a general election, thereby giving one side or another more of an opportunity because they can raise money over a longer period of time.
11:55 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
From an administrative point of view, which is what I have to be concerned with day to day, the issue we have right now with the 36 that was supposed to apply to a referendum is that it's not enough to print special ballots. We need to make special ballots available from day one of the referendum period. And we would need more time. In an election, we have blank ballots where voters can mark the name of a candidate they wish to vote for. And in a referendum, of course, you need to have the questions and answer yes or no.
So I guess some analysis we've done on that part is that we would need an additional seven to ten days to make sure we can print the ballot with the question and make it available early for electors.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
So the referendum law, in essence, if it's held concurrently, would be deciding the length of the election.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
By virtue of that, a referendum would be deciding the length of the general election.
11:55 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
I think if the committee proposed to move with concurrent events, that's one thing that would need to be considered. As for adjusting the length or exploring alternative administrative solutions, I would have to think about that. But right now I know we need more time to print ballots for a referendum.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
We've reached the end of our first hour and the witnesses we have.
Monsieur Mayrand, obviously you'll be watching as we continue our study, I'm sure you will, and if you think of any information we should know, please feel free to send it to the committee. We will be having you back at some point near the end of this process to discuss with you where we find ourselves at that time, so we'll keep you posted and you'll know where we're at. So thank you again for coming today.
We will suspend for one minute while we change our witnesses.
12:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I call the meeting back to order, back into session, again remembering that we are in public today discussing the Referendum Act.
Our next witness is Mr. Neufeld, the chief electoral officer for British Columbia. We're happy you were able to be in Ottawa today when we're looking at this. We're happy to have you here.
I believe you have some opening comments for us. If you do, please share them with us, and then we'll be able to ask you some great questions after that.
12:05 p.m.
Harry Neufeld Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC
Thank you, Mr. Preston.
Thank you, committee members, for inviting me here. I'm very honoured to share with you the wisdom from across the mountains.
B.C. referendum legislation allows a referendum to be held either in conjunction with an election or as a stand-alone event. Conducting a referendum, we say, as a thin layer on top of a general election is very effective at reducing costs and increasing participation.
The British Columbia Referendum Act predates a complete rewrite of the provincial Election Act in 1995, so we find that not all the provisions are exactly parallel. However, it continues to remain workable.
In British Columbia, regulations must be established specific to each referendum. In 2005 the regulations, at 16 pages in length, were substantially lengthier than the Referendum Act, which has never been longer than two pages since it was introduced in 1992. While it's not an ideal model for clarity—there is a lot of cross-referencing—it is a reasonable model for referencing the parts of the Election Act that are to be used, and this provides the framework for administration of the event, either as a stand-alone or in conjunction with an election.
Please be aware that there are several pieces of referendum law in the B.C. equation in addition to the Referendum Act. There is the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, which was passed in anticipation of the referendum in 1992, but the decision of the B.C. government was to allow Elections Canada to run that referendum and not to do it at a provincial level. So that act has never actually been used.
There was a specific 2009 Electoral Reform Referendum Act, which specifically said that the Referendum Act did not apply, and this act was what was to be used for the referendum we held earlier this year. However, they all follow the same approach of setting out the general framework of policy and process and requiring regulations to fill in the administrative detail with references to the Election Act and to other pieces of legislation.
B.C. has held two province-wide referenda in my tenure, in 2005 and this year. Both were on the subject of electoral reform, and they were both conducted in conjunction with a general election. I think they were both successfully administered as a thin layer on top of a general election, and there was no public criticism of the administration of either referendum.
Additionally, for both referenda an independent referendum information office was established to provide neutral information to voters about the referendum subject.
In 2005 the ballot question voters were asked was: Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform? Yes or No. There were two threshold requirements, and this is different from the Referendum Act normally, which is that 50% plus one vote is a majority, and that's binding on government if the referendum question receives that. Here the first threshold was that at least 60% of the ballot votes needed to be cast as yes in order for BC-STV to be implemented. This threshold was not met, with 57.69% of the total ballot votes marked yes.
The second threshold was that in at least 60% of the electoral districts—and at the time there were 79 provincial electoral districts, so in 48 of those—more than 50% of the ballot votes needed to be cast as yes for BC-STV to be adopted. This threshold was met when voters in 77 of the 79 districts, or 97.5% of the districts, voted yes by more than 50%.
The total expense for the 2005 referendum was just over $1 million on top of a general election cost of $23 million. Due to the fact that the referendum results only narrowly missed the first threshold and greatly exceeded the second, the government decided that a second referendum on the same subject was needed.
The 2009 referendum was originally expected to be conducted in conjunction with the November 2008 province-wide local government elections. The winning system was then to be used in the 2009 general election. Concerns were raised by my office that this would be an expensive proposition. For various legal reasons there would have been no substantive cost savings associated with holding the provincial referendum in tandem with local government elections.
The provincial boundaries for electoral districts did not always line up with the local government boundaries. As well, the eligibility rules were different at the local government level. It would have been effectively a stand-alone event.
That stand-alone event was expected to cost $27 million. We would have had to invest heavily in preparing for a general election under both electoral systems, a cost expected to exceed $30 million.
Based on these concerns, the government decided instead to conduct the referendum in conjunction with the 2009 provincial general election.
In 2009 the question posed in the referendum was slightly different. Voters were asked the following: which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial legislative assembly? There were two choices--the existing electoral system of first past the post or the BC-STV, the single transferable vote electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.
There were several other differences as well. Late in 2005, an electoral boundaries commission was convened to redraw the provincial electoral boundaries. As required by statute, I was one of the three commissioners.
Our commission was tasked with also proposing multi-member BC-STV boundaries along with single-member plurality boundaries. Missing in the first referendum on electoral reform, the BC-STV boundaries gave voters a tangible understanding of what the BC-STV system would mean in terms of representation for their respective area.
Following criticism from the 2005 referendum regarding the availability of information to voters regarding the referendum, for 2009 the legislators agreed to fund registered proponent and opponent groups at $500,000 apiece. That didn't really seem to have the desired effect. In our pre-election survey at the end of April, just two weeks before general voting day, the information we received was that only 63% of eligible voters had any knowledge of the referendum, while more than 96% had knowledge of the general election.
Again, for this year's referendum there were two thresholds. One threshold was that 60% of all votes province-wide had to support BC-STV in order for it to pass. At the end of the vote count, this threshold was not met, with only 39.09% supporting BC-STV.
Threshold two was that in 60% of the electoral districts--that would be 51 of the now 85 districts--more than 50% of the votes had to support BC-STV. This threshold also was not met, with only eight districts, 9.04%, supporting BC-STV in the majority.
Although the total costs of the 2009 general election and referendum are still being compiled, the projected expense for the referendum this year was $2 million on top of a general election projected expense of $36 million.
In the way of general advice before I open things up for the inevitable questions, I would say, first, provide in your review the legislative ability to hold referenda in conjunction with federal electoral events whenever possible, for the obvious administrative and economic efficiencies. Secondly, ensure that the regulations, however they're done and whoever does them, are passed in a timely way, preferably six months to a year in advance of the event, in order to allow for orderly planning of the administration of the referendum.
Back to you, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
Madam Jennings, we're going to start with you.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you very much.
Thank you for agreeing to come before this committee.
I find the experience--the contrast between the 2005 referendum and the 2009 referendum, and the differences in the results--quite interesting, including the fact that in 2009 there was an actual electoral map created so that voters were able to see, should the single transferable vote exist, what the difference would be between the existing first past the post system and the new system.
Have any studies been conducted to determine whether or not the fact that voters had an actual visual understanding of the differences had any impact on voter support of the single transferable vote system?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC
It's an interesting question. I have not seen any studies yet that indicated what the factors were on that quite dramatic shift of voter opinion, which came very close to endorsing it, even at the super-majority threshold set in the legislation, in 2005, and quite soundly rejected it in 2009.
There were a lot of factors at play. The economy was different, the balance in the House was different, the proponent and opponent groups were active, and there was a lot of TV advertising being done by the opponent groups. I'm not sure which factor was the most dominant one, but my office did make sure that the maps showing the difference between 85 single-member districts and 20 multi-member districts that would still return 85 members total were available to everybody. There was a household flyer, sent to every household in the province, that showed those maps.
So it will be very interesting to see what the factor was that caused this dramatic shift, but I'm not aware of any of those studies being published yet.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Are you aware of whether there are any studies under way to look at the two different referenda and attempt to determine what factor or factors contributed to the dramatic change in results? Are there any studies under way?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC
The only ones I know of that are under way are at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria in the political science departments. At what level these are being done, whether they're PhD.D theses or student papers in undergraduate I'm not sure, but I have heard some suggestions and my office has been asked a lot of questions in support of the research that's going on.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Would it be possible then to provide this committee, through our chair, the contact people?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes. So we could possibly contact them and see if they have any information they could provide us.
The other question I have arises out of a statement that Mr. Calandra made about a simultaneous referendum and election and that if a referendum would require extra time for the printing of the special ballots, for those of us who represent urban ridings, five or ten days extra, or more, in a campaign can make a major difference in our expenses, because our expense limit does not change. It then means that a bigger percentage of that expense limit is being used for equipment rental, etc.
Under your system, is there any provision so that if an election campaign or a referendum goes beyond the minimum mandated days, there is a pro-rated increase in the expense limit?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC
The way it's set out, the referendum can be, according to regulation, over a longer or shorter period. In the spring of 2002, before I started in this position, there was actually a referendum done by mail on treaty negotiation principles.
If it's tied with a general election, we have fixed periods for general elections in law in British Columbia. They cannot be varied. The writ is issued on a Tuesday, and four weeks later on a Tuesday it's general voting day.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections BC
It's a four-week cycle and it doesn't vary.
We also have the benefit of majority governments and fixed-date elections. As you probably know, British Columbia was the first province to move to a scheduled election date. It's the second Tuesday in May every four years. I had the ballots printed for the referendum in March, I believe, of last year. So we were there considerably in advance. There are considerable economies with being able to do things in an orderly way well in advance.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
We supposedly have a fixed election date, but it seems the Prime Minister doesn't believe in his own legislation.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
[Inaudible--Editor]...the opposition when it suits their purposes, I would point out, Mr. Chair.
