Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll take it. There's not a lot of love around here to be had.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for your presentations today. I'm just going to jump right into it, because I don't have a lot of time.

My sense is that we're beginning to hear that it's a big decision for Parliament whether we're going to do these during an election or whether they're going to be separate. It could affect outcomes, and also, it's big bucks.

It's interesting that it is now suggested that maybe we have a two-tier... Let me just throw something at you. What would your comfort level be with the notion that we would build into it two ways of doing it, with a decision point prior to, to be made by Parliament, as to whether or not it warrants a stand-alone, and therefore the extra expense, or whether it could be held simultaneously? Or is that just over-complicating things?

I'd like your thoughts, please, from all three of you.

Go in order of Confederation, why not?

[Greg Essensa]

I would suggest to the committee that is a suggestion that may warrant some serious consideration. When I look at Ontario's experience, some of the challenges we had, certainly by the number of not-voted ballots, there was a challenge getting the message through to the electorate. There were many electors, well over 100,000, who attended with very little interest in participating in the referendum for a variety of reasons. So I could very easily see the merits, perhaps, of establishing a two-tiered process that would allow Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, to determine, based on the question that you were debating at the particular time, whether it wished to conduct it in isolation or with a general election.

From my perspective, I would see a great deal of merit in that consideration.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Sir.

[Marcel Blanchet]

I share the view of my colleague from Ontario. It does depend on the subjects, as was said a little earlier. Given that there are financing rules, I think it is very important, when it is decided to hold an election at the same time as a referendum, to make sure that the question is not a question like the one in 1995 in Quebec. I find it hard to see how an election could be held at the same time as a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The act has to provide for both possibilities: that it will be up to the government to decide whether a referendum and an election will be held at the same time or a separate referendum will be held. That is a view that I think is worth considering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Croken.

[Lowell Croken]

I would agree with both of their statements.

I guess the only downside to having it at the same time as a provincial election is that some people who may go out to vote provincially may not be informed about the plebiscite or referendum question, and may just tick off one of the boxes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Another issue we're grappling with--although my sense is it's getting clearer, and we'll see what this does--is the notion of whether we would have a national referendum act, period. If there's a national issue, that's it; they run it and there's no question at all. There's been a suggestion that if provincial legislation for referendums--I'm not going to met say standards--matched up with the criteria in enough areas of the federal, if for some reason, whatever that might be, the provinces wanted to conduct it under their legislation, perhaps we could. We've had some experience with this. The Charlottetown accord I think went that way. So should we offer that option, or should we just say it's a national issue, a national referendum, with national rules, so stay away from any variations of that?

[Greg Essensa]

I would caution the committee on a couple of issues. I think you would definitely need to address the issues of residency, because I do understand that this does change based on the various statutes across the country. Regarding the issue of identification, all jurisdictions now have identification rules, and they are not all consistent, so I think that's another issue you would need to take into consideration.

Finally, as my colleague from Quebec indicated, there is the entire aspect of financing. Financing rules would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so there might be some merit to considering having a national act that would supersede all of the various provincial statutes, in order to have a consistent manner or application across the country.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You mean on a federal question?

[Greg Essensa]

I mean on a federal question.

[Marcel Blanchet]

That comes back to what I said earlier. I completely agree with my colleague from Ontario. In 1992 in Quebec we saw the problems that this situation could cause. The criteria for being able to vote were not the same as elsewhere in Canada. If it were ever decided to do that, it would be important to make sure that the rules are completely identical, so as not to put electors at a disadvantage in terms of the right to vote.

[Lowell Croken]

I agree with what both of them have said.

Another item to be taken into consideration is that if it's done provincially, you have 13 jurisdictions that are holding their own different elections all at different times, so scheduling might be very difficult, I would think, for a small jurisdiction like mine if a federal referendum were thrown on top of us to administer while we're doing a municipal, provincial, or school trustee election.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I have time, I have one quick question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sorry, you do not.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I do not. Okay, sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll get back to you.

Mr. Jennings...oh, Madam Jennings. I apologize.

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

I didn't realize you had the power to effect sex change.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Oh, you'd be amazed what chairs are able to do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I guess I would.

Thank you. Your presentations have been very informative.

Mr. Croken, you said that in the two plebiscites held in Prince Edward Island there was no requirement for financial reports or receipts because there was no public funding. Is that correct?

[Lowell Croken]

Yes, that's correct, on both plebiscites.

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

Mr. Essensa, I would like to know whether financial reports, receipts, and so on, are required for referendums in Ontario.

[Greg Essensa]

Yes, financial reports and receipts had to be submitted for Ontario. The Chief Electoral Officer worked with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario to actually develop an audit, which he passed by directive, so that those campaign organizers who had to register with the chief financial officer had to actually file those audits and those campaign receipts with the CEO's office.

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

In either of the two campaigns, if there were funds left in the bank, what would happen to the money? The question is for you as well, Mr. Croken.