Procedure and House Affairs committee  That is kind of what I think.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Ordinarily, though, if the money is spent, it will be noticed in one way or another. Leading up to the 1995 referendum, we knew perfectly well that the travel by people who came to Montreal represented expenses. But we did not know what the total cost was. In that case too, I talked about that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Absolutely. Indeed, I've been told that in 1999, if voting had been voluntary instead of compulsory, the outcome might have been positive. The reason it failed is that lots of people who are politically less motivated were drowned out at the polls by the fear of fines and they probably tipped the balance.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The last time Australia held a general election as well as a referendum on the same day was 1974. Plenty of referendums have been held. The last time was in 1999. I have systematically checked the dates. The years were 1906, 1910, 1919, 1928, 1930, 1946, and 1974. This suggests that maybe they had a few problems, because it hasn't been done for a quarter of a century.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  You bet I'm aware.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The answer to your question is found in section 3 of the act, which clearly states that this is consultation and not a decision by the electorate. Our referendums are consultative, and that's the reason no criterion for victory is indicated in this case. The difference with the B.C. scenario and also with the Ontario scenario is that they were binding.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Let me put it this way. The classic distinction in the English language is this: a referendum is binding; a plebiscite is not. To make things difficult, in French it is not the case at all. Indeed, I have a recollection that Mr. Patrick Boyer, an authority on referenda, wanted in 1992 to put this distinction into the legislation.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Absolutely.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In fact, do you know there was a tribunal in 1980? When the government of Quebec enacted the Referendum Act in 1978, it very clearly wanted the two camps to be able to spend. But we now know that it knew what I am going to tell you. It knew perfectly well that as Canadian law now stands, that prohibition was purely hypothetical.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Your reasoning is ingenious, Mr. Proulx, but I think...

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It's on tape. And there are a lot of witnesses on all sides. It is ingenious reasoning, but in the reality of politics I'm not sure it would happen like that, that is, that if the candidate in Hull—Aylmer supports a certain camp in the referendum and the candidate in the next riding for the same party supports the completely opposite option, I don't think one would be mounting a big campaign for the "yes" and the other for the "no".

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Before answering, just to...

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Then I will get straight to the point. I simply think you would have to measure it by the number of voters, fund the committee based on the number of voters in the riding where it is operating. As to the amount to be provided, I am going to leave that to the technicians.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't think anything could have been done, because it was a decision made by the Government of Canada at that time, not by Parliament. The government decided the referendum would be held in all parts of the Canadian territory but Quebec. So in Quebec, they elected to use the provincial statute, and that was it.