Thank you very much.
The chair asked me to present the referendum framework in Canada, so I'll present quickly the Referendum Act and give some information about the study that was conducted by this committee in the last session. Mr. Kingsley also referred to much of the information to which I will refer.
As you know, the Referendum Act was adopted in 1992, just in time for the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.
The Referendum Act itself is not a comprehensive or exhaustive statute. It has only 40 sections. It refers to the Canada Elections Act, and it requires the Chief Electoral Officer to make the necessary adaptations to the Canada Elections Act so it can apply in a referendum context.
In June 2009 the Chief Electoral Officer sent a proposed set of regulations to this committee, which would adapt the Canada Elections Act. His document triggered this study, because the Chief Electoral Officer, in his submission, brought to the attention of this committee some of the problems with the current system.
One of the problems was that the Referendum Act was adopted in 1992, and following that the Canada Elections Act was completely overhauled in 2000. The schedules in the Referendum Act now refer to sections of the Canada Elections Act that no longer exist, so there is an inconsistency there. They also refer to amendments that have been made to the Canada Elections Act, which are very difficult to include in the referendum regime.
He brought these problems to the attention of this committee. He also brought to the attention of this committee the fact that the referendum regime is no longer aligned with the values of the electoral regime, in that there is no limit on contributions; there is virtually no limit on spending; corporations and unions can make contributions; and the punishment for an offence in the referendum context is different from the punishment for the same offence in an electoral context. So there is some inconsistency between the Referendum Act and the Canada Elections Act. Also under the Referendum Act, inmates serving a sentence of two years or more cannot vote. And I will provide more explanation on that later, because Mr. Kingsley made some comments in that regard.
In the Referendum Act, there is a provision mandating that a House of Commons and Senate committee proceed to a three-year study following the implementation of this act. The act entered into force in 1992. In 1995, a study was undertaken, but there was only one preliminary meeting before Parliament prorogued. Further to that, committee study did not resume until last year.
To date Mr. Mayrand testified before the committee obviously, and so did several provincial chief electoral officers, including Mr. Blanchet from Quebec, Mr. Neufeld from B.C., Professor Louis Massicotte from Laval University, and Patrick Boyer, a former member of Parliament and rather prolific writer in the area of electoral and referendum-related issues.
A number of issues were identified by the committee. First of all, the legislative framework. Do we maintain the same legislative framework, in other words a partial referendum act along with regulations established by the Chief Electoral Officer, or, instead, do we opt for complete and comprehensive referendum legislation? A third motion would be to have a referendum act or provisions, a referendum regime which would be included within the Elections Act.
The committee also addressed the issue of the topic. At this point, the topic must strictly refer to constitutional matters, the Constitution of Canada. Would it be timely to broaden provisions so as to include all public interest matters as potentially being the subject of a referendum?
Another matter was addressed by the committee, and witnesses raised important issues: the holding of a referendum and of a general election at the same time. At this point, it is currently prohibited pursuant to the Referendum Act, as a referendum would be cancelled if ever general elections were called.
Obviously, there is the issue of the referendum finances, which I briefly raised earlier on. Do we want to keep the same regime or have umbrella organizations, like they have in Quebec, or should we perhaps choose something like what was presented by Mr. Kingsley, earlier on, where committees could be deemed to be third parties?
Another issue was that of simultaneous provincial and federal referenda, as took place in 1992 in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Finally, another issue has to do with inmate voting. I noticed that Ms. DeBellefeuille asked a question of Mr. Kingsley on this matter, earlier on. Two judgments have been rendered by the Supreme Court. One of them, in Haig, was handed down in 1993, precisely in the wake of the 1992 referendum. Practically speaking, the finding was that article 3 of the charter, guaranteeing certain democratic rights, applies within the electoral context and not to referenda. So, even though the right to vote was granted to prisoners later on, in the context of another Supreme Court decision, this case law does not apply. In other words the Chief Electoral Officer, when the Elections Act was passed, had to maintain the disenfranchisement of inmates. There is no discretionary authority in this respect. The Supreme Court decision disqualifying them from voting in the context of elections does not apply to referenda. And that is actually Mr. Mayrand's position, he who in fact administers legislation in this regard.
Those were the main issues in the study. There are others, rather technical in nature, presented by Mr. Mayrand, but insofar as there would be a new legislative framework for referenda, these matters would be addressed and rectified. In essence, that is the referendum context and an update on the study.
