Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

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

You've come here to share your opinion with us, but ultimately the committee will decide on a final report and recommend amendments. However, if I understand correctly, you believe the Sauvé ruling should also apply to the referendum process, that inmates should be allowed to vote in referendums. Am I right?

[Patrick Boyer]

Yes.

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

You are no longer actively involved in politics, but since you have worked as a journalist, as an academic and as an expert on referendum issues, you are aware that in 1985, Quebec held a referendum. Prior to the actual referendum, we witnessed a three-day love-in. Canadians came from around the country to tell Quebeckers how much they loved them and to chant slogans like “Canada, stand together, understand together”. We witnessed an outpouring of affection. Here, we regularly get to see just how much Canadians love us.

However, there were problems owing to the expenses incurred by third parties. Canadian Airlines and Air Canada offered return flights from Vancouver to Montreal for $99. Of course, it was 1995, but even back then, these tickets cost more than $99. Trains were chartered from Ottawa and Toronto to give Canadians an opportunity to come and tell us they loved us. Telephone calls were made. All of these expenditures exceeded the allowable limit.

In your opinion, should specific provisions be adopted to address expenditures incurred by third parties during a referendum campaign?

[Patrick Boyer]

Yes, I do think specific rules need to be adopted respecting expenditures. That said, there is no question that Canadians do love Quebeckers. And why not? I'm from Ontario. Ontario was carved out of a part of Quebec. At one time, the two provinces were like sisters. When an issue is so deeply linked to the future of the country and Canadians' sense of belonging to one country, it affects everyone, from coast to coast. Therefore, I can understand why, under the circumstances, Canadians living outside Quebec felt compelled to travel to Montreal or other communities.

Nevertheless, I do think that some rules should apply to the referendum process.

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

Because this outpouring of affection—

[Patrick Boyer]

As I was saying 10 minutes ago in response to another question, a referendum campaign period is similar to that of an election campaign. From a legal standpoint, we need a system in place to control expenditures and participation. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must also apply. It is possible to combine rules to allow a free and equal general election, but controls must be in place as far as participation is concerned.

If candidates and parties must adhere to certain rules during this specific period, how can a third party be allowed to enter the same arena without being subject to the same rules? The same is true in the case of a referendum. There must be clear rules in place governing this process, because an even bigger process is underway in the country. The effectiveness of the process must be safeguarded.

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

So then, the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Welcome again today.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, Chair.

Welcome back to you, sir. You got comfortable again in that chair really quickly. That's good. It bodes well for the rest of us in the future.

I want to follow up on your position that any referendum ought to be held separate and apart from a general election. That is different from what we've heard from some experts, who have said that while there are some complexities, the efficiencies involved make that worthwhile. I assume--and you can speak for yourself, of course--that your view is the other way around, that the overlapping confusion, with different rules applying to different aspects, makes it worth spending the extra money to have the clarity of process.

Can you expand on that for us?

[Patrick Boyer]

Thank you. Your final comment summarized my position, which is that a general election is an all-out, all-inclusive event. You can't keep anything out of a general election, and it's all about personalities, parties, policies, their past, their present, their future. It's everything.

The referendum is a specific ballot question on one issue, and it will be by its nature, or should be, a transcending issue, something that will affect a positive principle of the state and how people live. But it's one clear issue, and it's an issue beyond that which the parties or the candidates themselves really could cope and decide in a way that over time is going to allow the citizens of the country to feel they're part of that process, that it's not another case where some decision has been made.

Now when you get to the odd situation where you have a general election going on and a referendum at the same time—and we have had a number of them, with some real problems—the first problem would be what you do, because you're an elected MP and you would presumably have an opinion. Maybe not all MPs—some might want to take a neutral position on the question—but most parliamentarians would want to be pro or con on the issue. But what if your party has taken a position on that issue that's contrary to the one you hold? How could you be going through an election campaign? Party unity? Oh yes, I'm supporting the blue team or the red team or the green team or the orange team—whatever team—but meanwhile, over here, I'm different from what the team says.

So this is a way of highlighting, just in the case of 300 MPs alone, the invidious position you create in our country when you try to have these two events side by side. What are the arguments for having them together? Well, it will reduce the cost. Right. What else? Well, it will increase the turnout because more people will be going to vote anyhow, and while they're there, they can cast their ballot on their own.

This is certainly what influenced Premier Grant Devine, I guess it was, in Saskatchewan, when his government—someone here will know this history better—was not doing at all well in the polls and they added a couple of ballot questions relating to funding for abortions and one other what might be termed “hot button” issue. They were thinking those issues would move people to come out to the polls, and, secondly, that those people who would have strong enough feelings to be motivated to come to the polls, by the way, when they were there, would be casting a vote for the Progressive Conservatives, by and large, provincially.

Now when you get too clever with that political calculus in trying to decide if this is a ballot question that ought to legitimately go to the people in a referendum, then you can see how the process itself is compromised. That's another reason why I think it makes the greatest sense, because we're doing this for the people and for citizen participation, to segregate the general election from the issue that has to be decided for the longer-term importance of the country, and to hold that separately.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

At the earlier meeting, I thought Tom made a really good observation along this way, that the parties are going to take positions on these issues. They're going to pour money into it, so how do you separate money that normally should be identified only for the referendum from money that is just for the election, when the two are being merged?

If I can get one more question in—I know I'm running out of time—in 1992, was one or more of the provinces allowed to use its own provincial referendum legislation? Am I correct in that?

[Patrick Boyer]

Yes. What was happening was that three of the provinces, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, had all said the people would have a chance to ratify the constitutional changes. Alberta, quite precisely, in fact, said the members of the legislative assembly up in Edmonton wouldn't vote on the issue until the people had voted on it, so it was going to be kind of like an in-province ratification that way. The way it played out, once Prime Minister Mulroney had Canada's Referendum Act passed, Alberta and British Columbia folded their votes into the national vote so that in those two provinces in fact the provincial referendums didn't take place because the national one supplanted it. In the province of Quebec it was the same day, the same issue, but it was held under Quebec's Referendum Act. That was smart for Quebec because it's a better act.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I assume you wouldn't perceive anything like that in the future, or would you? Do you think there could be a provincial option, providing the provincial legislation meets certain standards or criteria or similarities, or do you think this has to be blanket and it's just going to be one of those Confederation issues that we're going to have to make happen?

[Patrick Boyer]

It's a good question, and I know it's also in the materials that have come from the research branch.

I think in a way the circumstances in 1992 were unique. Secondly, there were anomalies between who could vote under the Quebec Referendum Act and who could vote in the rest of the country. So what do you do about that?

First of all, if now you recommend that we create the Canada Referendum Act as a comprehensive statute, you have the opportunity, in the process of doing that, to make sure that it harmonizes as greatly as possible with provisions in other provinces. It's rare, though, that there would ever again be all referendums at the same time like that. The main thing is simply paying attention to what the charter requires in terms of the guarantee of democratic rights to citizens. Beyond that, getting as much uniformity as possible, I think we do live in a federal state and there will inevitably be some inconsistencies, but as long as they're at a small level and not affecting fundamental rights, that should not be a great problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We've had a great first round and a lot of information has come out.

We're moving to a five-minute round. Please try to be a little more concise.

Madam Jennings, you're up.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

To come back to the issue of holding a referendum at the same time as a general election, you're clearly opposed to that. You've also mentioned that the period in which a referendum campaign is actually being run could at times be shorter than what we have for a general election.

Could you give us your thoughts on what would be reasonable grounds to justify a referendum period that is less than 36 days, for instance, and what would be reasonable grounds for a longer period, say 45 days or possibly 60 days?

[Patrick Boyer]

Thank you.

I think 30 days ought to be ample time. An issue that's going to go to the public in a referendum is already an issue that has some attention to it, so there will be some preconditioning of the public and the political mind around it.

Secondly, we're living in an age where communications in this country are overwhelmingly fast. I invite you to come with me back to Joe Ghiz's office when he--the father of the current premier--was premier on the Island, and he asked me to go. They were holding a plebiscite on the fixed-link crossing; that was the term for the bridge. They had a lot of time allowed for the campaign. It started in the fall. The voting was going to be on through the winter. Everybody had said everything they could possibly say for or against the fixed link in the first couple of days. Then they had to sort of comment on what somebody else had commented on, and on and on. Premier Ghiz said to me, “Patrick, thank God for Christmas and New Year's”--because they came in the middle of that and distracted people and gave them something else to talk about. That was before we were where we are today with our communications.

I think the biggest limit would simply be what Elections Canada requires to put in place, the mechanism for conducting the vote. Again, time is not required for the nomination of candidates, all of that sort of thing. A lot of what we're used to thinking about in terms of general election campaigns, getting the publicity out, is so much more streamlined for a referendum campaign. I think it would help us as a maturing democracy, a parliamentary democracy, to be able to have referenda questions referred in an efficient and expeditious manner.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Would you also be supportive if we as a committee recommended that there be a comprehensive, single statute to deal with referenda, with a mechanism that would provide citizens with a process for requiring the government to hold a referendum on a particular issue?

For instance, we know that in B.C. they have such a mechanism. We know that at the municipal level in Quebec, and possibly in other provinces as well, citizens have a process under which, if all conditions are met, the municipal government must launch a referendum. Do you see this as a help in promoting citizen engagement and as a legal possibility within the legislation?

[Patrick Boyer]

Yes, I do. For the reasons you've already mentioned, it would be a good idea. By and large, the power on the part of people to initiate something under the public agenda takes place through their elected representatives and the political parties, but not always.

In other jurisdictions, where the right of initiative was available, important changes have been made. In Italy, for example, where the Roman Catholic church has a certain position on the issue of abortion, and the mainline parties agree with that way of seeing the issue, it was only because of the right of initiative that women in Italy were able to bring about a ballot question to deal with the abortion issue.

In the state of California, where all the parkland, that beautiful, irreplaceable Pacific Rim, was succumbing to developer after developer, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats at the state level were doing anything, because both were receiving substantial campaign contributions from the developers. It was environmental and naturalist groups that moved to protect this heritage. They forced a ballot question that created the great Pacific Rim national park in California.

These are instances in which the political parties serve as a checkpoint for what citizens themselves might feel. The citizens aren't dictating; they are only triggering a mechanism whereby the issue can get ventilated. Then all citizens have an opportunity to vote and choose a course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a delight to have you here, Mr. Boyer. I remember looking back and reading the books you distributed to all of us many years ago. Thanks to your sending out new copies, I now have one set for my constituency office and one for my Parliament office.

[Patrick Boyer]

No home or office should be without a set.

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

Absolutely not. They make excellent Christmas gifts.