Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You said earlier that the parties would probably line up on one side. In other words, all or a majority of a particular party would be on the "yes" side or the "no" side, regardless. I don't necessarily agree with you, and that complicates my life even more when it comes to spending.

I come back to the question of election spending as opposed to referendum spending. If the parties were completely lined up on one side or the other, with a line down the middle, we would probably not need a referendum, let's be clear.

I will explain my problem again. My neighbour in the next riding, who may be in the same party as me in a general election, is not necessarily on the same side as me in a referendum.

Mr. Massicotte, you said earlier that if I give an interview and I tell a journalist that I am in favour of the "no" or the "yes", whatever, there is no spending associated with that. You're right. But in theory, if I travel from my riding in Hull—Aylmer and I go to Montreal to help a colleague in the general election campaign and give interviews relating exclusively to the referendum, I have to split my expenses. That brings us back to an accounting problem.

In that respect, I am having a lot of trouble understanding how we could do it, to genuinely split the expenses equitably between a candidate in a general election and one of the referendum committees.

[Louis Massicotte]

Your reasoning is ingenious, Mr. Proulx, but I think...

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Could you sign your statement please?

[An hon. member]

That's the first time he's heard that.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha!

[Louis Massicotte]

It's on tape. And there are a lot of witnesses on all sides.

It is ingenious reasoning, but in the reality of politics I'm not sure it would happen like that, that is, that if the candidate in Hull—Aylmer supports a certain camp in the referendum and the candidate in the next riding for the same party supports the completely opposite option, I don't think one would be mounting a big campaign for the "yes" and the other for the "no". I think what would happen is that the candidate in Hull—Aylmer would get instructions from high up in the party so that their colleague's opponents in the next riding couldn't use the candidate's position to bolster their own. You see kind of what I mean.

What would probably happen is that in both cases the candidates would be urged not to say too much because they don't agree on the subject, and if either of them stated their opinion publicly the effect would be to embarrass both of them. I think that is what would happen.

Politics is your department, not mine. I think that in the example you cite, the parties would make sure their candidates did not say too much in expressing their opinions on the referendum. What happened in British Columbia and Ontario, where the candidates and members stayed silent on the referendum, illustrates that this is probably not a hypothetical scenario at all.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In that case, if memory serves...

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have less than a minute for the question and answer.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

... it was about a question regarding an election method, which is a touchier subject.

If companies and unions could not contribute financially to a referendum campaign, the government would have to make up the shortfall. How could that work? At present, in the case of an election, it is based on the previous results, a candidate receives so much per vote, etc. How do you see it in the case of a referendum?

[Louis Massicotte]

Before answering, just to...

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Please give a very short answer. Mr. Proulx' time is up, so we'll let you answer very quickly.

[Louis Massicotte]

Then I will get straight to the point.

I simply think you would have to measure it by the number of voters, fund the committee based on the number of voters in the riding where it is operating. As to the amount to be provided, I am going to leave that to the technicians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Massicotte, for being here today.

You referenced your situation in the 1992 referendum, when you had lived there just barely long enough to participate, and yet others who were there less than six months weren't able to. I wonder what your comments are in terms of the legal framework surrounding a national referendum. What could have been done to mitigate that situation, or are there steps we could take to avoid that problem?

[Louis Massicotte]

I don't think anything could have been done, because it was a decision made by the Government of Canada at that time, not by Parliament. The government decided the referendum would be held in all parts of the Canadian territory but Quebec. So in Quebec, they elected to use the provincial statute, and that was it. The provincial statute was like this. The federal government had no authority to alter the statute, and therefore, if you accept that the provincial rules apply, you have to accept all the provincial rules, including those you dislike.

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

Okay.

You referenced a number of different jurisdictions that have held referendums at the same time as elections. I think you mentioned Australia as one that has had referendums at the same time as elections at least seven times.

[Louis Massicotte]

Yes.

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

I do know there is a little more pressure brought to bear on Australians to participate in a national election. I think there are some financial obligations there.

I wonder about the fact that Australia has repeated this practice at least seven times. There seems to be a pretty good track record of success there. Have you observed any negatives in that process?

[Louis Massicotte]

The last time Australia held a general election as well as a referendum on the same day was 1974. Plenty of referendums have been held. The last time was in 1999.

I have systematically checked the dates. The years were 1906, 1910, 1919, 1928, 1930, 1946, and 1974. This suggests that maybe they had a few problems, because it hasn't been done for a quarter of a century.

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

Then to follow that up, are you aware that Australian residents are also obligated to participate in referenda? I'm not exactly sure what the tax rules are.

[Louis Massicotte]

You bet I'm aware.

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

Are they obligated as well to participate in the referenda?

[Louis Massicotte]

Absolutely. Indeed, I've been told that in 1999, if voting had been voluntary instead of compulsory, the outcome might have been positive. The reason it failed is that lots of people who are politically less motivated were drowned out at the polls by the fear of fines and they probably tipped the balance.

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

That's an interesting observation.

We had the chief electoral officer from British Columbia here earlier this week, and he pointed out the fact that in the referenda that have been held there, there are often or almost always the two different criteria for measuring the results: one being the overall criterion, percentage; and then one divided by riding across that particular province.

In your opinion, if there are future federal referenda, would it be wise to have a three-part system: one with an overall criterion; one that is provincial, for a certain percentage of provinces to come on board; and also one at the local riding level to avoid the undue influence of the large urban centres? Could you comment on that?

[Louis Massicotte]

The answer to your question is found in section 3 of the act, which clearly states that this is consultation and not a decision by the electorate. Our referendums are consultative, and that's the reason no criterion for victory is indicated in this case.

The difference with the B.C. scenario and also with the Ontario scenario is that they were binding.