Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #27 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 citizens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #27 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 citizens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
You touched briefly on the peculiar way in which our Referendum Act is structured, in that it permits ballot questions to be held in some provinces and not in others. I think the purpose of this back in 1992 was to take into account that Quebec and potentially other provinces might want to hold parallel processes on the same question. But my impression is that it's actually a useful thing to leave in the statute, because we have an unusual amending formula. The Referendum Act deals with constitutional questions, and section 43 of the Constitution permits constitutional amendments that affect one or more provinces but not all of them. One could imagine, for example, a boundary adjustment between two provinces that would affect just those two and not others.
Do you agree with me that it makes sense to leave this provision in the act, allowing referenda to be held in some provinces but not all?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I think it does. There could be an issue relating to Coast Guard matters that would not affect Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or Alberta. There could be some other issue within a particular region on the Prairies that's only germane to that area. This is a federal state. It's not a uniform state, and we have a lot of diversity. This device is simply a democratic instrument to assist governments and the people, and their elected representatives, in coming to an informed decision on a specific policy. The more freedom, the more opportunity for freedom's intelligent application, the better.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I had a second question relating to the nature of the way we answer questions. The Referendum Act requires that every question has to be in the form of a yes versus a no, and it seems to me there are some issues to which this is ill suited. When we had the referendum in Ontario on multi-member proportional, MMP, versus first past the post, I thought it was a good example of a question that's not well suited to a first past the post response system, in that there are multiple alternatives to the status quo.
I actually spoke with the folks at Fair Vote Ontario and indicated that I thought the appropriate way to deal with this question would have been to have some kind of preferential ballot, in which you see at the top a couple of or maybe three alternative options to the status quo, plus the status quo, and are asked if you can rank them preferentially. That's on the assumption that in the end there will always be more people who don't favour any particular system and who are willing to game the system in the hope that their alternative, such as STV, will come up, rather than vote for the alternative.
That's just my own opinion and I may be alone in having it. Do you think there's merit to the idea in allowing in certain circumstances for a preferential ballot? Or ought that to be avoided at all times, in your opinion?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Well, Mr. Reid, I think this question is one of the most important ones the committee will grapple with, and that is the question, because that's the heart of the referendum.
In my books, I say that not all issues--a lot of economic and social policy questions--are ones that can be easily reduced to yes or no answers. However, you will be voting in the House this week, and all of you will be voting. We've had votes that always come down to.... No matter how complex the issue, somebody has to make a decision. Do the troops stay in Afghanistan, yes or no? Do we have a trade treaty with the Americans, yes or no? Do we continue to build the program for nuclear powered submarines, yes or no? On and on, with all the complexity that's there....
Ultimately, whoever is sitting around the cabinet table, whoever is voting in the House, or whoever is Prime Minister, has to decide: we're going to do it or we're not going to do it. That's an important thing to bear in mind.
It's just like how you have to focus your attention to give a 45-second statement in the House. You sometimes have to really get the ballot question precise. In one of the referendums in Quebec, the wording of the question was over 100 words long. This is not a way of making it clear to Canadians.
I think it's very important, if I could submit this to you. You really want to address section 5 of this present act, which deals with the question and the vote on it by Parliament. It goes on for a page and a half. It's all about details and technical things behind the scenes. If section 5 were describing the inner workings of a clock, great, but there are no hands out there telling the time.
What needs to be said is a form of the question. Many statutes do that: “Are you in favour of such-and-such, yes or no?” The British vote on the Common Market was as simple as that. And all these big questions....
So I think it's important that a lot of attention be paid, not to, as section 5 currently does, the back of the rules of procedure on how the vote's going to come about and what's going to trigger this, but to the wording and the process for it.
I'll just end with this. I submit that this is where it's very important that parliamentarians really grab hold of this idea that although the term “direct democracy” has been in our political culture since a century now, what we're really talking about is semi-direct democracy. Although the citizens are voting on a ballot question, first of all it is parliamentarians who have enacted the law and set the legal framework under which the process takes place. Secondly, it's parliamentarians who have debated and enacted the ballot question. Third, if the measure carries and people say, “Yes, we want that to happen”, then it doesn't just happen; it falls to parliamentarians to implement it, to debate the legislation, and to enact it. This really is the highest partnership that citizens and their elected representatives could have, and this is why this system is not alien to a parliamentary democracy, but rather an integral part of it.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Madame DeBellefeuille or Monsieur Guimond, do either of you have a question?
Noon
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boyer, we have barely begun our study and so far, you are the first person to acknowledge the importance of a referendum, that it is different from an election and that it deserves special attention. When the decision is made to consult the people, generally an important matter is involved, one that will bring about major changes to the way things work.
Your testimony touched me because to date, all of the arguments presented to us had to do with cost and the fact that voter participation needed to be encouraged. As you know, voter turnout is a major problem and the level has dropped considerably in recent elections. First, I was moved when you advised us to proceed in two distinct stages, that is to start by consulting people by way of a referendum and to refrain from holding a referendum and an election at the same time. Your comments about the importance of doing this really resonated with me.
I would imagine that every province has enacted its own referendum legislation since 1992. Let's suppose that the federal government ordered another referendum and that several provinces wanted to ask the same question, but wanted to proceed through their own legislation. Would it not be to our advantage, as we consider updating the Referendum Act, to harmonize the federal act as closely as possible with the various provincial acts, to try and do away as much as possible with the major differences that could be prejudicial to voters?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I agree with you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille, that federal and provincial legislation should be harmonized to the greatest possible extent. That is why, for this bill, I found certain models, such as the Quebec Referendum Act, the bill drafted by the Trudeau government, as well as certain measures brought in by Saskatchewan.
We derive certain benefits from the federal system, namely control and experience. In certain provinces, the process is more advanced than in others, and there are lessons to be drawn as to what works well, and what does not.
As I said at the outset, we have been able to benefit from relative periods of calm in Canada's Parliament to work together in an atmosphere of cooperation and to give this matter more thought, all with a view to ensuring that the interests of Canadians are taken into account.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
You are probably well versed in all provincial referendum laws, having studied them. To your knowledge, should we look to a provincial act for inspiration as we work to improve this particular piece of legislation? Is there one in particular that is more advanced or more inspirational, since you did say that all referendum acts are not equal, that some are more advanced?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I would have to say Quebec's Referendum Act, first because it articulates clear principles. The provisions governing the actual process are quite clear, but not as specific as they are in section 5 of the federal act. The Quebec legislation is a model, not just in terms of clarity of expression, but also because it broaches the essential question of two committees. We do have some questions about the Charter, about citizens' rights, and so forth. The federal Referendum Act reflects a certain amount of timidity on the part of the government of Prime Minister Mulroney as far as the Charter is concerned. In the years since the act's adoption, the Supreme Court has explained, in a case that came out of Quebec, how legislation can address both sides of an issue in a way that is mindful of the system's integrity while at the same time, awarding the maximum possible and respecting the rights of citizens.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Merci.
Mr. Christopherson, I know you're antsy, so let's get one more quick question from you. I will be trying to get everybody in.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It will be quick, and I'm only antsy because I have another meeting that I'm now late for, but I want to clarify this, because it's really important that I get it straight in my mind.
I wrote down that you said we should try to harmonize to the greatest extent the provincial and the federal.... I'm coming back to this business of the national referendum. It's easy, if we have a national referendum law that is consistent, or rather, put the other way, if provincial legislation is consistent with the federal. It's not a problem. You give the provinces the option: if you want to run the show, go ahead; or we'll do it—whatever you want, it's no big deal. But what if it is not harmonized? What if there are a couple of key issues—funding, umbrella groups, who gets to vote, something that is fundamental? It's still a constitutional question, and one province can call it one way, one province can call it another, and the feds ultimately decide to call it one of those two ways or yet another way.
How do we come to grips with that? How do you see that working when there isn't a nice, easy lineup? It's a federal referendum, but for whatever reasons, political, jurisdictional, whatever, there are provinces saying they don't want to play that game, but want to do it their way. How would you suggest we approach that federally?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
It's an excellent question, and thank you.
I think the way to deal with that is to establish two or three fundamental criteria that the committee would feel, going into this, are the overriding principles that really matter. One could be in relation to the citizen's ability to be included in decision-making wherever these are transcending issues, wherever the citizen herself or himself is going to have to live with the consequences of how they're decided. You always keep the citizen at the centre of this process as you're making the rules, the same as you would if you want a patient-centred health care system or a student-centred education system or a citizen-centred government system. Keeping the citizen at the centre, I think, is a good starting point.
A second would be to have respect for the requirements of the charter when going through this. Some provinces have already gone further down this road—the Province of Quebec—in finding the golden mean to balance upon, but the main thing in harmonization that you would be looking for is not whether it dovetails with every other statute that's out there in the provinces, but rather whether it conforms with the fundamental Constitution.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I appreciate that you would line up some of the biggies and that they have to be on side, but something that could be relatively small in the scheme of things could, when you're talking about charter rights, still be a major determinant for someone on a political scale, e.g., finance levels, the amount of money you can contribute, the amount of money you can spend. That's not a huge charter issue, but it may make a difference to a province, such that it might want to be under its own, instead of.... How do we build in a law that deals with that?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Ultimately this is an act of Canada for Canadians. So where there are lessons to be learned from provinces, why would we not learn them? But at the end of the day, this is not a provincial legislature; this is the Parliament of Canada. The law has to be created and crafted as best as it can be to serve the whole nation.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So you would suggest that we do line up all those, however many there are, key fundamental issues, and if we have some relative harmonization, then you could build into the law sort of an opt-out clause, if you will, or a provincial clause that allows them to do it. And if they don't meet each and every one of those, or 90% of those, then it has to be on the federal side and you deal with the politics of that afterwards?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. Harmonization is interesting. We've had in this country since at least the 1920s the uniformity commission, where they're trying to get uniformity in provincial statutes, whether it's the securities legislation, company law, or so on. That's not really what we're talking about here—well, your committee may not be considering uniformity. I forgot for a moment which side of the table I was on.
12:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Really, it's called best practices. Some provinces have gone down this road and have the scars and got the court cases to decide it. I don't think there are that many issues, frankly, to be concerned about.
What is a real issue is the political culture, and that is the real problem in Ottawa. Members of this committee, you are a minority group. There are 300 elected representatives in this city, and countless thousands of others who are running the Government of Canada. I think highly of the public service. They're dedicated. But they're operating within an Ottawa culture of secrecy and control.
It is on record that many senior public servants consider Parliament to be an inconvenience--an inconvenience. Certainly the work that you will be doing and the recommendations you will be making in the coming weeks relating to referendums will get a lot of cold water poured all over them and you.
In 1992 a briefing book was put out, for government members, anyway, on how to go and sell and deal with the referendum question. This was a briefing book on the proposed legislation enabling a federal referendum on constitutional reform, which I subtitled “The government's crafted speech modules for dumbing up the referendum topic”.
12:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
That was the short title.
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes—dumb it up.
Everybody was enjoined to never waver from the two key messages. One, this legislation is a precautionary measure. That number one message about the 1992 Referendum Act from the Government of Canada, that it was a precautionary measure, tells you all you need to know about the political culture of our national capital.
Joe Clark, who was a former Prime Minister and who was carrying this file, did not want a referendum. He said that if we have a national consensus we would not need a referendum, and if we don't have a national consensus we wouldn't want a referendum.
Out of his own words comes the most precise statement you'll ever get as to the political culture of Ottawa, which is at best that we'll tolerate the people's elected representatives, their inconvenient questions, and their scrutinizing of public spending, but it will be a long day in the minds of the senior mandarins and those who advise the ministers, the Joe Clarks of the world, the Lowell Murrays, who spent three years frittering away time while the Meech Lake Accord went down to defeat, instead of holding a referendum on it shortly after the premiers had all signed it.
That's the culture you're operating in. So that's why it's very important that this mandate really focus on the citizens and your role in representing them, I submit.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Boyer. It's obvious, the depth and breadth of your knowledge of this issue, one I certainly don't ever expect to have as great a grasp on.
There are a number of terms that are thrown around when we discuss referendums--plebiscites, binding referenda, non-binding. In your book you talk about the different percentages for this and that.
If we come up with a new referendum act, do we in fact have to define within that act what we're talking about? There is all of this misunderstanding: what is a plebiscite, what is a referendum, do you have to define it as binding in each case? I would like your thoughts on some of those questions because they're certainly confusing to me.