Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The other question I have is about the time between issuing the writ and the referendum, which is 36 days. Is that sufficient time? The reason I pose the question is that we had a provincial referendum on another issue, proportional representation, and the population was absolutely confused. So in referendums you need an educational component. Otherwise, everybody follows the bouncing ball, thinking I'll follow her because she knows better and she can propose to be an expert, and I'll listen to her. People get carried away. We find that happening. What is your opinion? Is 36 days enough? Should it be increased?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Thirty-six days is ample. If it's enough for a general election, it's enough for a referendum.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The last question I have is on the referendum committee and financing. You said that public finance for a referendum is not available at the moment?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

At the moment it's not available. There's no tax credit, there's nothing if you make a contribution, there's no reimbursement of referendum committee expenditures, and I'm saying that should remain the same.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

If it should remain the same, should we reduce the limit to $1,100 to match with the Elections Act? Because the contribution, the maximum anybody can make, is $1,100....

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

This is what I was alluding to, that consideration should be given. What you should be aiming for is a greater simplicity in terms of what a referendum committee and a third party can do and what their obligations are.

There might be a slight variation, in that under a referendum scenario or a joint scenario where two are being held together, it might be possible for a union, a corporation, or an association to form a referendum committee but not be able to make any contribution to it. Others would have to make contributions to it, but under the same scheme, only its advertising expenditures would be controlled. So you don't really care how much they spend trying to get organized. If they want to spend their money foolishly, that's up to them. Right now, under the third party regime, all you control are advertising moneys. That's all you control. That's because a decision was made, which I think was a wise one, to only control that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Kingsley. It's good to see you back again.

Although you were always very forthright in your discussions with us, when you were last here as the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, obviously you had to be somewhat circumspect in offering any opinions. I don't think you have any constraints in that regard now, being a private citizen. So I'm very interested in your honest opinion on a couple of questions, because you were the only Chief Electoral Officer who administered a referendum—there's only been one since 1992—and you have intimate knowledge of both the Referendum Act and referendums themselves. These are questions the committee has dealt with and continues to deal with.

Do you think referendums should be expanded? Should they be broadened to include referendums in the public's interest, as opposed to merely issues of the Constitution? Secondly, are there any specific changes to the Referendum Act that you would recommend, based on what you've seen and how you've worked with that act over the years?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

The first country I visited when I was Chief Electoral Officer was Switzerland. They hold referendums until they're blue in the face—50,000 people can.... What they were using it for, really, was blocking legislation, because you could overturn legislation. It made progress very difficult. I wouldn't like to see referendums go that far, but I think there is room to try to get to the dissatisfaction, or the seeming dissatisfaction, as I alluded to in my previous answer. I think we could successfully extend referendums. We might even have forms and numbers of signatures. If you can gather 15% of the electorate on a particular topic, you've got a pretty significant number of people here. Fifteen percent of 24 million is not easy to get. So that's a possibility. I don't know if 15% is good, maybe it's 20%, but you get my idea.

With respect to changes to the statute, I abhor the thought that more than one referendum is being held at the same time on the same question but with different rules. I especially abhor the fact that 10,000 Canadians were deprived of their right to vote. That really upset me to no end. I made a public speech about it, and Mr. Macdonald from the CBC reported it, but nothing happened. Under our Constitution, I found that quite reprehensible. It's either that or we let the provinces run a national referendum, but each under their own rules if this is what they want, and if this is what we want politically. But if we're going to have a referendum.... You can't have a provincial referendum but the City of Regina has its own rules, in Saskatchewan.

So the other one is there are slight amendments, as I indicated, about the number of days for committees to establish themselves. Those were the main concerns that I would address if I were to change anything.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I just want to clear this up. Are you suggesting then that the national referendums should take place from time to time, not just on matters of the Constitution but in the matter of the public interest? How would you set the standard for that? In other words, is it strictly if you get a 15% uptake on a petition regardless of what the issue is, or should there be some parameters and criteria governing a question that is considered to be in the national or public interest?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I'm not even sure that 15% would be it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Whatever--

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Whatever the quota.... That might be one way, but certainly the other way is for the government to make a decision. Then there's a debate in the House and a resolution to hold a referendum. There's a vote in the House, and it says yes, we want to hold a referendum on this particular question, and the question is there. I think this would be a very legitimate way of deciding what question to put, other than a constitutional one, even though a constitutional one is also the object of much consideration by Parliament, in both houses.

So this is the way I would see it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I tend to agree with that, and perhaps it could be a combination of both, for example, if the percentage of Canadians signing a petition was sufficiently high.... You could say, for example—an either-or situation—if 35% of Canadians signed a petition on a particular issue it automatically triggers a referendum, or if in a vote in the House of Commons the majority of parliamentarians determine that there would be a referendum on a particular issue of interest, then that would also trigger one.

Would that be a viable option, in your view?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes, it would, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame DeBellefeuille, you're talking first?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Kingsley. This is the first time we have an opportunity to have an exchange as I've only been sitting on this committee for a short time. I had to exercise my memory because our work on the Referendum Act started about a year ago.

You didn't discuss this in your presentation, but I imagine that you probably agree with the other witnesses on the issue of inmate voting, namely that this is provided for in the Elections Act but not in the Referendum Act.

Do you feel that we could immediately make a recommendation to amend the act in order to correct this anomaly and make sure that inmates have the right to vote during referenda?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I was surprised when I read that this was a consideration. I think that it was Professor Massicotte who raised this. I was surprised because during the 1992 referendum, inmates obtained the right to vote and for the first time we set up a voting system for inmates in federal penitentiaries and required that this be done in provincial prisons. The definition of a voter is not contained in the Referendum Act. It is stated in the Elections Act and the Chief Electoral Officer adapts the Elections Act when it comes to those clauses. I was a bit surprised by that. I might be wrong, but I recall that this was the first time that inmates were allowed to vote.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

During the Chief Electoral Officer's testimony as well as that of Mr. Massicotte and other witnesses, a problem was raised and it was stated that it was an error not to have allowed inmates to vote. So I'm very surprised by your response.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Their position surprised me. This is why I will pursue this further. I didn't do so, because I thought that my memory served me well, but this issue does need to be clarified. As a matter of fact, I clearly remember a discussion I had with the attorney general of one province in particular who objected to inmate voting. I had had to tell him that referenda were federal, that federal law applied and that the inmates in his province were going to vote. I won't tell you which province it was, however.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I have the note before me. It was in 2002 that the Supreme Court invalidated the Canada Elections Act. That's all right, we will check this.

If we were to allow this to be broadened, by that I mean if we were to amend this and allow Canadian referenda on subjects of public interest, do you think it would be a good idea to twin such referenda with federal general elections?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

This is more or less what I was saying earlier when I said I agreed with the member who spoke before you and with the committee in general, and when the lady also raised the question. I know that this goes beyond what's being done right now. I know there is an advantage when an election deals only with members of Parliament and electoral issues, but I think that Canadians are sufficiently sophisticated now to allow us to say that we could do these things. And if there are some ambiguities, then so be it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

If we're talking about referenda in the public interest, one can perhaps understand that this could be twinned. But if we maintained the current situation and did not amend the legislation, keeping referenda only on constitutional questions, for example, it seems to me that it would be difficult to twin a general federal election with a Canadian referendum dealing with such issues. I think that this is not the same thing at all. It's completely different.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I agree. That's why I said that if the committee said that the only acceptable subject for a referendum was a constitutional question, two laws would have to be maintained. In my opinion, it's no use having a single law for both and I don't see the point of holding a federal referendum at the same time as a federal election.