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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right, great.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayrand, when a nation, a province, decides to hold a referendum, it is always on a very important matter. It is important to ensure that both sides have fair chances and that justice is done to ensure democracy.

With respect to the second option you submit, you seem to be saying, unless I've misunderstood, that it would be more practical and easier to integrate the Referendum Act within the Canada Elections Act and that that would facilitate the application of rules.

What effect would that have had if it had been done by the time the 1992 referendum took place? What impact would that have had? What would the advantages have been, would it have been clearer? In 1992, for instance, Quebec held its own referendum on the same question but using its own legislation. Would your option to integrate one within the other change things? Would things have been different, for Quebec, for instance?

[Marc Mayrand]

I believe that that is a separate matter, as I briefly mentioned in my presentation.

The committee should consider—or review and perhaps even reaffirm—the option of two concurrent events being governed by two separate schemes. That is what happened in 1992. I would point out that that raises some issues for electors in terms of harmonization of rules between the two statutes.

It is up to the committee to determine whether it is appropriate to proceed to public consultations dealing with only one question but subject to two different legal frameworks.

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

Mr. Mayrand, although I cannot see into the future, I do not think that the Government of Quebec, regardless of which party is in power in the province, would agree to hold a referendum which, for example, would be ordered by the federal government and administered in accordance with the federal as opposed to its own legislation. That is the scenario that you have presented to us.

If we were to go ahead with the amendments that you are suggesting, namely that the Referendum Act be integrated into the Canada Elections Act, and we were to see a repeat of the exercise carried out in 1992, with the Government of Quebec consulting its population on the same issue under its own legislation, would that change anything? Nothing would change. The Government of Quebec would invoke its legislation. As far as Quebec is concerned, integrating the Referendum Act into the Canada Elections Act would change nothing. It would have no impact on the decision, for instance, to hold the same referendum on the same question.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. I am trying to understand what changes that would entail for Quebec.

[Marc Mayrand]

From what I understand, that would depend on the order triggering the referendum. I would imagine that there would be discussions between the people from the various governments.

With the option that allows the use of various regimes, it would theoretically be possible to hold consultations in 10 provinces under 10 different systems. This is a matter that must be decided by the governments of the day. This option is always possible under the current Referendum Act, unless it is amended, as is the option of holding concurrent events.

As I already mentioned, that creates some administrative difficulties. A few cases have been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada. Voter eligibility is not the same under the federal legislation and under the Quebec legislation. Issues have been raised and they need to be clarified.

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

Would the integration of the two acts guarantee a better balance in expenditures and fundraising for the “yes” and “no” sides? Would such a measure make administration easier?

[Marc Mayrand]

The way I see it, the answer is yes. It is easier to deal with expenditures, for example, when you have a system that is better compartmentalized. When there are two parallel regimes, you will always have people who push the envelope for both of these regimes and try to take advantage of one or the other. In my opinion, that is the drawback of having two different regimes for the same question, for the same event.

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

Is the Canada Elections Act stricter or more?...

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson, you're having a second chance before some others have had a first. Please be as frugal as you can with your time so we can make sure everybody who has a question gets a chance in this hour.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will.

Theoretically, can you envision the practicality of having a federal referendum and 10 provincial referendums held at the same time?

[Marc Mayrand]

If there are 10, 11, or 14 referendums--the territories might have their own--except for collecting results at the end of the day, I'm not sure what role I would play in that. I assume that in those cases the referendums would be run by provincial authorities. That's what happened in 1992. The national referendum in Quebec was run by the provincial authorities in Quebec.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right, but I'm talking about the possibility of a referendum happening under a national government, and then provinces.

[Marc Mayrand]

The issue was raised again because we would have issues, I believe, of harmonizing rules among various jurisdictions. Again, eligibility for electors varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The right to vote varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Proof of identity, for example, is not the same for every jurisdiction. So you would have in some parts of the country some electors who would be eligible to cast a ballot on the referendum, but the same elector living in the next province would not be eligible to cast a ballot on the same question. So these are issues for Parliament.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one more question, and I will end it there, thank you, Chair.

Do we have any examples of other federations around the world that have grappled with this already, and of any conclusions they've come to?

[Marc Mayrand]

With the issue of concurrent federal and...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not aware of any.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Perhaps the analyst will be good enough just to see if that does exist and how that's working for them.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, the same thing, if you could. A couple of your colleagues would still like to get a question in.

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

Sure.

I'm going to, in a roundabout way, get back to the funding issue again. Let's just dumb it down here and really be clear. Currently, for a referendum question to be put on any kind of ballot, that would be the decision, ultimately, of the government of the day, whether it be national or provincial, right?

[Marc Mayrand]

Right.

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

So clearly some--not all, but perhaps most--of the referendum questions can be viewed as being highly political. Obviously, if it's a question of separation in Quebec, clearly it's political. Some may be less so. But for those referendum questions that are highly charged and highly political, every established party, obviously, one would think, would have a defined position on that question.

Currently, under electoral laws, individuals can contribute only a maximum of $1,100 a year to a political party or candidate, yet you said that under the current situation—and correct me if I'm wrong here—individuals could contribute up to $3,000?

[Marc Mayrand]

That's only in Quebec, sorry. That's the Quebec legislation. There's no limit at the federal.