Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee. It's an honour to be back on Parliament Hill and to be invited to appear before you.
The work you've undertaken with reviewing the Referendum Act, when I look at the proceedings already held, indicates that a lot of the effort is focused on dealing with technical aspects of the existing law and bringing matters up to date in terms of regulations.
My main submission this morning is that busy MPs who have many demands on their time have a fundamental decision to make—that is, whether your work in the coming weeks and your recommendation flowing from this committee to the House will be merely one of addressing regulations, technical updates, and tinkering with the existing 1992 act, or rather, whether you'll take this opportunity on behalf of the people of Canada, and indeed the Parliament of Canada, to move to do a larger act that will serve our country as a democracy far better, far longer, and leave you with a sense of accomplishment for the time you've spent, that you have not simply worried about knitting together regulations and technical details but have in fact equipped this country with the democratic infrastructure for consultation with the citizens on fundamental ballot questions.
It's very important that this review is being undertaken by your committee, because not only does it mean that Parliament is no longer in violation of one of its own statutes—a time limit for in fact carrying out this review—but, far more important, what is required in putting together legislation to affect the democratic processes is best carried out at a time of calm deliberation. Too many times the laws governing referendums in this country have been enacted by provincial legislatures, and by Parliament itself, on the very eve of those contentious issues coming before the electorate, a time when feelings were heightened and judgment was influenced by the temperature of the hour.
Nothing could be better than this time that you have now in the coming weeks for careful deliberation. That is why I would submit that a possibility for the committee is to consider a recommendation for a comprehensive Canada referendum act, rather than a short act that you're looking at now, the 1992 act, with significant cross-reference to the Canada Elections Act, extraordinary delegation of powers to well-intended and well-functioning officials who nevertheless are saddled with delegated power, trying to work these sections together. It will serve the country, the election officials, and parliamentarians themselves so much better to have the Canada Elections Act, a current up-to-date statute governing elections to our House of Commons, and, parallel to that, a second separate statute, the Canada referendum act, which will be a complete, self-contained code for governing that process, with its many similarities to provisions under the Canada Elections Act but also great differences.
Moving quickly, Chair and members of the committee, because I know you have questions, I appreciate the ruling of the chair that allowed me to see in advance of this morning's hearing the brief prepared by Michel Bédard from the parliamentary information and research branch. The fundamental point there that I want to recommend is that a single statute that is comprehensive will in fact address many of the points raised in this work—from umbrella committees, to spending levels, to the exercise of democratic rights, harmonization with provincial referendum acts, and so on—and we can get into the details of that.
To conclude, I would like to say that what you have before you in the form of the 1992 Referendum Act—and the version I have here is chapter 30 from the 1992 Statutes of Canada current to October 28 of this year—would appear to be a slim statute. There's no particular merit in being large or small. The real merit is in the comprehensiveness, clarity, and efficiency of the legislation. In fact, this is not the Referendum Act you have before you.
This is how big it is, but once you get the consolidated version with the regulations, it's the same 32 pages of the present Referendum Act. This was the consolidated version under which we had the Charlottetown Accord referendum; all the rest of it is the Canada Elections Act, regulations, and cross-references. I invite any person to say that the one with a lot of cross-references is any better than this one, which is in fact the same size.
This was the private member's bill I introduced in the House of Commons in July 1988. It's a comprehensive statute that was reintroduced September 26, 1989, and in every new session of the House, so again in May 1991, and, determined as I was, again on September 23, 1991. This was what Senator Eugene Forsey endorsed on the first introduction. This is the same bill that, as opposition leader, the Honourable Jean Chrétien endorsed, recommended, and urged Parliament to enact because some legislation was needed to be in place for the national referendum.
If there's not time to read it into the record, I would at least refer members to the six origins. This law was drawn from six different sources, which appears in a book some of you may have, called The People's Mandate.
I will conclude with this, Chair, if there's time, but it's to point out and put on the record that this comprehensive statute of 1992—and so things have changed a bit—was drawn from these six sources.
First is the British Referendum Act of 1975, which recognized the important concept of having two umbrella organizations: one for the no and another for the yes side on the question.
Second is Quebec's Referendum Act, which is admirable for its simplicity and clarity of expression, similar to Quebec's Election Act and many other statutes of the National Assembly in the past several decades. It not only picked up the British idea for umbrella organizations, la Loi sur la consultation populaire, but also added important Canadian context elements regarding financing and registration of referendum groups.
Third was the earlier bill that had been introduced in 1978 in the House of Commons by the Honourable Marc Lalonde on behalf of the Trudeau government. That dealt with many essentials for nationwide voting in Canada, such as preparing the voters' list, conducting the vote, broadcasting rules, campaign financing, offences, and time zone differences.
The fourth source I drew on for this bill were several ideas I came across when writing a book I did not inflict on you. This was a 1982 book called Lawmaking by the People. That includes the legal provisions by which citizens themselves can initiate a referendum. This is the initiative process.
Fifth, I added some provisions, such as those for the publicity pamphlets, drawing from the 1912 Saskatchewan Direct Legislation Act. That's where both sides have equal say in a publication that the chief electoral official sends to all citizens so they all have information from both sides of the campaign. Those were incorporated in the bill.
Sixth, and finally, were provisions from the amendments the Mulroney government had proposed, major amendments in 1986 to the Canada Elections Act dealing, essentially, with equality rights provisions. Unfortunately, they were not enacted at that time. As well, I picked up a number of recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Marc Hamel
So all of that was incorporated in that bill. When it came time for the government, finally and reluctantly, to realize that with three provinces going to have referenda on the Charlottetown Accord--Quebec, Alberta, and B.C.--it was inappropriate to have two classes of Canadian citizens: those who could vote to ratify the country's Constitution and those who could not. That was when Prime Minister Mulroney realized it was necessary to have in place legislation for a national referendum. That was the time when the bill that you are now considering became a stripped-down version, by private member's bill, limiting it to constitutional questions alone, not including umbrella committees, not effectively dealing with spending limits, and otherwise reflecting an inordinate reluctance on the part of the government--and even more than the government, the Ottawa political culture that favours control and secrecy and directed government--to have a referendum only as the last resort. That was the genesis of the bill you have before you.
I submit to you that you do have an opportunity to now go back to the higher level and give this country, and the citizens of this country, enabling legislation for direct citizen consultation by ballet whenever and if ever that occasion should present itself.
Thank you.
