Thank you.
I have two or three interconnected questions. I recognize that some of this information is contained in your publications, Monsieur Boyer.
You said the referendum questions should be transcending issues, and I agree with that. If you were drafting a legislative framework--a new referendum act--what criteria and conditions would you include that would define a transcending act? In other words, nobody would want to see a frivolous question placed on a ballot. You gave the example in Saskatchewan. Whether or not public funding of abortion is a transcending issue could be argued. Regardless of that, how would you define a question--whether it was brought forward by a private citizen, a private citizens' group, or a government--that meets the conditions that would allow it to be considered in a referendum?
Secondly, once the question has been defined and agreed upon, what percentage of voter turnout do you suggest would be necessary, if it were a binding referendum, for government to be obligated to act upon the results? We've seen many times, even in provincial byelections and municipal elections, that it is not uncommon for voter turnout to be 20% to 25%. What would happen if a national referendum was called, voter turnout was 15%, and the yes or no side got 51% of that? In other words, 7% of Canada's population expressed an opinion, and the government said that was going to be a binding referendum. How would you deal with those issues that could quite conceivably come to pass?