Mr. Chair, committee members, and other members of the public, thank you very much for the invitation to appear before your committee today. As mentioned, my name is John Leslie Hollins. I was the Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Ontario from 2001 to 2008, and to that end conducted Ontario's first referendum in over 80 years at the same time as the 39th provincial general election in 2007.
My comments today will address five subjects: my mandate, the statutory framework of the referendum, election and referendum administration, registered campaign organizations, and the public education program.
On the mandate, in 2007 I was given three mandates in connection with the 2007 referendum. These were to conduct a referendum at the same time as and in general accord with the rules and procedures for the 39th provincial general election; to provide for the registration and associated reporting for registered referendum campaign organizers; and to conduct a program of public education to ensure that electors throughout Ontario received clear and impartial information about the referendum process, the date of the referendum, the referendum question, and the content of the choices in the referendum.
Since there was no legislation in Ontario governing referenda at the provincial level--except the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, and it dealt specifically with changes in taxing matters--specific statutory authority was required to enable a referendum on electoral system reform to be held. The statutory framework for the referendum was established through legislation introduced some six months after the publication of the regulation that led to the creation of the citizens assembly in March 2006.
The key provisions of the bill: if the citizens assembly recommended the adoption of a system different from Ontario's current electoral system, a referendum on the recommended system would be held; if required, the referendum would be held in conjunction with the 2007 general election; the referendum question was to be defined by cabinet.
To be considered binding, the recommended electoral system had to be selected in at least 60% of all the valid referendum ballots cast, and in more than 50% of the valid referendum ballots cast in each of at least 64 electoral districts.
The legislation also defined the operational framework for the referendum, essentially paralleling the provisions of the Election Act. It also established the concept of registered referendum campaign organizers and the regulatory framework for referendum campaign finances. The referendum campaign finance rules were later established by Ontario regulation 211/07.
Administering a referendum in parallel with a general election proved to be a positive experience, particularly from an event management viewpoint. Modifications to poll procedures and training, additional ballot production, and adjustments to staffing and support were readily accommodated during preparatory activities and during the event. As a result, when electors went to the polls, they were greeted with an effective and efficient process. Voters received two ballots, one to elect a member of the Legislative Assembly and one to determine the results of the referendum on electoral reform. They were able to cast both ballots in a supportive environment.
Since differences between election and referendum calendars and poll administration procedures were not significant, shared initiatives and budgetary efficiencies were achieved that would not have been possible in a separate referendum event. For example, by pairing voter information mailings and notice of registration cards with referendum education materials, Elections Ontario was able to inform voters about both events at a significantly lower cost than would have been required if they had been separate activities. The successful delivery of the event depended on integrated planning and delivery of many separate but related activities, including staffing, training, communications, procurement, technology, supplies, and logistical support.
The total cost of the 39th provincial general election, referendum, and referendum education program was $94.56 million. To each eligible elector in Ontario, that was $11.14. The administration of the general election itself was $85.6 million, or $9.99 per eligible elector. The add-on referendum administration was $1 million, approximately 13¢ for every elector. The referendum education program was approximately $8 million, a cost of 92¢ per eligible elector in the province of Ontario.
In addition to operational responsibility for the referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the regulation of referendum advertising was fair, transparent, and accessible to all Ontarians who wanted to participate directly in the referendum debate. Persons or entities known as referendum campaign organizers were required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer if they were spending $500 or more on referendum advertising promoting a particular outcome. Once registered, they were required to report on the contributions they received and the expenses they incurred to support their advertising.
As part of the registration process, the Chief Electoral Officer was required to review and approve the name of each referendum campaign organization to ensure that there would be no confusion with the referendum campaign organizers registered under the act; with a third party for the purpose of the election under the Election Finances Act; or with a candidate, political party, or political organization active anywhere in Canada. The legislation prevented registered parties and their constituency associations from registering as a referendum campaign organizer with the intention of conducting advertising to promote a particular result.
To this end, a guideline was developed to give clear direction to parties, constituency associations, and candidates on the limits to their participation in the referendum debate. To ensure that all potential referendum campaign organizations knew that there were referendum advertising requirements, newspaper advertisements were placed throughout the province.
Each registered referendum campaign organization was required to file a report with Elections Ontario detailing income and referendum advertising campaign expenses together with the name and address of anyone who contributed $100 or more for the purpose of referendum advertising. I might add that the rules were fashioned after the leadership rules in the Elections Finances Act in the province of Ontario. There were no limits on donations or expenditures. A total of ten referendum campaign organizers were registered for the 2007 electoral system referendum. Nine of the ten raised and spent funds. In total they spent $495,942.
The public education mandate was somewhat extensive, and there were key lessons to be learned. The question on the referendum ballot addressed a significant issue in the lives of Ontario electors by asking them to consider the fundamental aspects of the democratic process by which they are governed. Once they became aware of the issue, electors showed that they were interested and concerned, but they also wanted to evaluate the alternatives with experts on the proposed systems. Elections Ontario was not mandated to fill this role and could not develop a framework that would have allowed it to provide forums for the proponents to carry their messages to electors in all areas of the province. The provincial nature of the campaign meant that the opportunities to access prime-time television, for example, for anything beyond paid advertising was severely limited.
A neutral education program was difficult to craft, as would be the case under any circumstances. It had to rely on partners to share in the message delivery, whether for proponents of the status quo, changed choices, or representatives of the media. The former groups did not readily come to the fore during the campaign. In particular, the media was trapped between competing interests, and the election campaign took up most of their time. Post-event surveys of eligible electors confirmed that 50% of eligible electors thought they knew more than enough to vote at referendum time. Of course, this is in direct contrast to the 52.1% turnout that we actually received. It would be remiss of me not to point out the number of rejected, declined, and unmarked ballots during this process.
I will do this on a comparative scale. In Ontario 20,000 ballots were rejected in the 2003 election. In the 2007 election in Ontario there were 19,000. In the referendum there were 28,000. In the 2003 election in Ontario 2,600 ballots were decli ned. In the 2007 election there were 3,400 and in the referendum, 21,000. In unmarked ballots, in 2003 in Ontario there were 7,000. In 2007 there were 10,000. In the referendum, there were 111,000.
I thank you for your time here today, Mr. Chair.
:
We talk at the same time enough during the day; we'll do it separately this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for accepting our invitation and being here this morning, sir.
In 2007 you administered a referendum and a general election at the same time.
Mr. John Hollins: That's correct.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm appalled at the numbers you just gave us on rejected, blank ballots, and so on. Besides that, I'm not sure you're going to be able to answer in the sense that this particular referendum was on electoral reform.
Mr. John Hollins: That's correct.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it's not the same situation as the different referendums we've had. I'm thinking of the Charlottetown referendum or the multitude of referendums we've had in the province of Quebec. What I mean by this is that we have the pro-side and the con-side, or the yes and the no, and then we've got different smaller groups within the yes umbrella and within the no umbrella.
Do you feel it's appropriate to have a general election and a referendum at the same time? I'm thinking more, sir, along the lines of how you would split the expenses in the sense that in your referendum I presume most politicians did not get involved in the debate, probably did not start a campaign saying they were in favour or they were against. I assume it was left fairly neutral.
Mr. John Hollins: Completely neutral.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: It was up to the government to advertise and for the public to decide. Right?
:
Yes. In fact, from the education perspective, we started in the month of June. That was when we were handed the education portfolio. Right away we polled to see how many people understood what was going on and felt comfortable that they could actually make a decision. We ran at about 8%.
Then we worked out our strategy, going forward to educate the public. We put a program together, which we monitored every month. Of course July and August were certainly a challenge, and the numbers didn't really come quickly. By September, we started to see a pretty good move. Our goal was 74% of the population. Why was that? I should probably qualify that. In 2003, in the last general election, we did post-election surveys. We always do that so that we understand the metrics, our success rates, and things of that nature. At that time they said that in our population in Canada right now, a 100% turnout would actually be 74% of your eligible voters, because 26% have no interest and have declared that they will never participate in democracy.
So we set that as our target, 74% of people having enough knowledge. As we worked through, by the time we came out—it was five days before The Globe and Mail ran a story saying that we in fact were sitting somewhere around 68% or 69%--we felt that from a goal perspective we were probably there, and we set that goal fully knowing that we were the optimists, because our last turnout was 56%.
I thought that the people who participated probably participated with good knowledge. If they didn't, there were probably unmarked ballots.
I hope that helps.
Thank you, Mr. Hollins, for appearing today.
I'd like to go over for a moment a few of the things that have been raised by Rodger and Marcel on the rejected ballots. You've identified the fact that probably—and I think you're quite correct—the reason there was such a high level of rejected or spoiled ballots is that people were there to vote in the general election and didn't really care about the referendum question. Therefore, they just left the ballots blank.
That obviously lends itself to the larger question as to whether or not referendums should be held in conjunction with general elections. We had a witness yesterday, Professor Boyer, who stated unequivocally—I'm not sure if you saw the testimony or heard it—that he believed referendums should not be held in conjunction with elections. He stated a number of reasons. One example he gave was what happened in 1976 in Saskatchewan. The provincial government, the Progressive Conservative government of the day, brought forward a referendum question on public financing of abortions. His interpretation—and I agree with him, and I was in Saskatchewan at the time—was that he believed the PC government of the day wanted to have this question on the ballot paper as a referendum question in an attempt to get people out to vote against public funding of abortions, and those people would more than likely have voted for the PC Party.
In other words—although he didn't say so in these words—I think the impression was that he felt that political parties might be able to use referendum questions to manipulate public opinion one way or the other politically. He felt that those two events should be separated. I'm wondering first if you have an opinion on that, or if you still believe that referendums should be held in conjunction with elections. I think that's one of the primary questions this committee is going to have to grapple with when we get down to discussing.
I'll be quite honest with you. My original thought process was that for cost savings, there is no reason for me to think otherwise than that the referendum should be held in conjunction with elections. I used to share exactly the same opinion as you just stated this morning. After Professor Boyer's submission yesterday, I'm starting to rethink my position. I think that's a big question that we're all going to have to come up with an answer to, whether referendums should be held in conjunction with general elections. You've stated that you think they should. Based on what I've told you about Professor Boyer's opinion, do you have any reason to doubt that your position is the one you want to stay with?
:
That's an interesting question. Let me share a little bit of history with you.
I started in Elections in 1972. I've always run off a list. I did some enumerations. I think there was a reality. The numbers in Ontario were very clear. When you went door to door, knocking on people's doors to get names on the list, we would get somewhere between 76% and 78% of the eligible voters. Fourteen days out, the list would be closed. In other words, we were disenfranchising 22% of the people. They could show up at the poll, but they wouldn't get a ballot. If their name was on the list, they would.
So we moved to an inclusive methodology, which was the national register. In other words, from an administrative perspective, I'm not touching those 22% any more. I'm not going to their doors. Now we go inclusive, whereby I have to try to find all of you and engage you completely through the process. I have to keep you in that process all the way through. I know I'm using databases that are somewhat out of date, but they have to be. People won't stop dying, they won't stop moving, they won't stop selling their houses, or turning 18. So that's the percentage I have to deal with. But do I really have to deal with it directly now, or can I deal with it indirectly?
I know the names I have on my list, and I know the residential addresses out there across the province of Ontario where I don't have a name. I can still communicate with that address. When I'm sending an ad out, I can still communicate. If I can continue to engage them, then it's quite possible for them to show up on election day now and they can still participate.
People say, “Well, okay, but aren't you jeopardizing currency? The currency to a democracy is the ballot, and aren't you jeopardizing that?” I'm not. I'm not because if your name's on the list or not on the list, you're showing me ID that you are who you say you are and that you're qualified to vote. We're still containing democracy really well, but what we've done is, instead of narrowing our numbers we have to deal with over the process, we're keeping it open, aiming at 100% all the time, right up to election day.
It's no different from a party. A party has its money and it spends its money right up to the day before election day. Parties hate advanced voters, because they haven't finished their message yet. They haven't done their final sell. It's the same thing: why would I shut off two weeks? I still have two more weeks to get more names, more people, and they can show up on election day. That's why the national register of electors is good for our democracy. I really believe it.
Managing it, I won't lie to you, is a nightmare. It's very difficult, quite a challenge. But I think if you keep it in perspective, what it's there for and what your real challenge is, you're fine. I think it's good, healthy.
Actually, it's more of a point of clarification. I think it's important to get this on the record, because we might run into this situation in future meetings.
On the question of whether or not a member of Parliament is compelled to appear before a committee if they don't want to, you'll recall I raised that at the last meeting. My contention was that a member of Parliament is not compelled to appear if that member does not want to appear. Michel and Marcel both said that they are compelled. In fact, they are not.
I'll read into the record from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009, under the heading “Committee Powers by Committee Type”, under the subset “To Send for Persons”. I won't read the entire rationale, but I'll cut to the chase. It says, “The same logic explains why a Standing Committee cannot order a Member of the House of Commons or a Senator to appear.”
Now, there is a recourse to that, and I'll read that, because it's a process: “If a member of the House refuses an invitation to appear before a Standing Committee, and the Committee decides that such an appearance is necessary, it may so report to the House and then it will be up to the House to decide what measures should be taken.”
So there is some recourse. But my point is, as I stated in the last meeting, you cannot force a member of Parliament to appear based on a committee's wishes. It has to go to a higher body.
Mr. Chairman, honourable colleagues, chère colleagues, I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to see if we can't work collectively and cooperatively on ending something that I believe needs to stop on all sides. I also want to thank the honourable Speaker of the House of Commons for his ruling on my point of privilege.
I especially want to thank Mr. Tom Lukiwski, who advised me that Mr. Vellacott would be offering an apology. I accepted Mr. Vellacott's apology. It was sincere. It was correct. I've always had the greatest respect for Mr. Vellacott, as I do for all members of the House of Commons. As I have said many times, there hasn't been one member of the House of Commons or one senator in my twelve and a half years of being here who I wouldn't want as my neighbour. We may disagree on issues, but that's beside the point.
So, why are we here today? I got a ten percenter in my riding with Maurice Vellacott's name on it, but he didn't do the work on it. It was done by somebody within the central party of the Conservative Party. To be frank with you, sir, whoever designed this, whoever authorized sending it out, that's the person I would like to meet. If I lived in Yukon, we'd make sure that person had a disability pension right after we met with him. But we can't do that these days. We have to be nice. It's that person who I would like to see apologize, not just to me but to all my colleagues in the House of Commons who received this nonsense.
To be completely frank with you, sir, and I say this in the simplest terms that I know, this was a piece of garbage. But I will say something. “The failed long-gun registry. Hard on farmers and hunters. Useless against real criminals.” That is absolutely correct. I've been saying that since 1993, four years before I got into the House of Commons. I have completely opposed the registry since 1997 with every chance I have had, from press conferences to working with Gary Breitkreuz and everybody else. But here is what it says:
Your Member of Parliament, Peter Stoffer, worked to support the registry and end the amnesty. Is that the support you expect from your local MP?
I don't know another way to say this, sir, but it was a bold-faced lie. Somebody within the central party had to have known my voting record, had to have known where I stood on this issue, and still sent it out under the name of a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. Why did they do it? Is it--sorry about the language--to piss me off? Is it to get me upset? Is it to win my seat? Is it to garner votes among my constituents to get a database and raise funds? I mean, if you wanted to say that I voted against certain items of a budget, that's fair game. If you wanted to send something to my riding talking about the home renovation tax credit, that's fair game. But to send a bold-faced lie into my personal riding....
I work with Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who my friend Mr. Kerr knows. They questioned me. They said, “Peter, what's going on? Have you changed your mind? Did the party get hold of you and make you change your opinion?” I had to explain myself to an awful lot of people. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we don't have time to re-explain things that we've already done for twelve and a half years.
At the end of the day, I accepted Mr. Vellacott's apology without reservation. But I still need to hear from the person who designed this and who ultimately authorized this to be sent into my riding. That's the individual or group of individuals who I would like to see and hear from directly.
Second, when it comes to the use of ten percenters--and I know the Board of Internal Economy and others are discussing this at this time--I have a personal opinion, but I don't have a party position. As you know, I'm not a member of the board, and I'm not an officer of the House of Commons, but I believe--and all parties are guilty of this--it's time that not only this committee but Parliament itself should have a serious discussion on the future use of ten percenters, the content of those ten percenters, and maybe, just maybe, we should have a little more decorum, not just in the House, but in the message we send across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to release whatever frustration I had before. I want to thank the members of the committee very much for their time as well.
I'm prepared and willing to answer questions in both official languages.
Merci beaucoup.
:
Sure, that's not a problem.
Thank you very much for agreeing to come before this meeting, Mr. Stoffer, and thank you very much for your heartfelt statement.
I have two questions. One, in Mr. Vellacott's apology, did Mr. Vellacott explain how his name came to be attached to that ten percenter? My understanding is that under the rules of the House for householder ten percenters, the member actually has to sign off on it. That's the first question.
On the second question, you've suggested that it's perhaps time for the House, through its different committees, whether it's before the Board of Internal Economy or the House itself, to take a second look at ten percenters. You may be aware that the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Michael Ignatieff, has taken a very clear position on the issue of ten percenters. That is, the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus, would like to see them limited to the member's own riding. I'd like to know if you have an opinion as to the position that has been taken by the Liberal Party.
:
Perhaps I'll expand that question. I thank you very much for it, by the way.
I've seen ten percenters that went into Bloc ridings after they voted against a particular motion, when it came to some sort of crime bill. And I thought, wow, that's heavy. And then I just saw a recent one on anti-Semitism in some ridings in Quebec, and I said, whoa, where are we going with this?
Generally, sir, what I would do if I had my way is to have us stop the practice of attacking one another and attacking our voting records. If you want to send information to my riding on the good things the Conservative Party has done, go for it. Fill it up. But if you want to attack me or attack a voting record, I could flip it right back.
For example, Mr. Armstrong, a brand-new member of Parliament, voted against an issue for safety in St. John's yesterday. Now, I easily could have done a ten percenter and slammed him, thinking how dare he oppose a safety measure for Newfoundland. But it would have been stupid of me to do that. It would have been a waste of taxpayers' money. It would have been a waste of my staff's time. And why the hell would I do that to a brand-new member of Parliament? It's not appropriate to do that.
I think the House leaders, the whips, whoever, should get together and set some kind of a guideline, an approach to say that if we send these ten percenters to the ridings, then let's have a little bit of civility around them. People look at us during question period, as you know. They look at us as if it's Romper Room for adults. We don't need to extend that childish behaviour.
I'm just as guilty as the next guy. I'm not innocent here in this. But we all need to work together and tone down that nastiness.
You just talked about voting. We want to encourage people to exercise their democratic opportunities. But if we keep sending out this nastiness from all sides, we're just going to turn off the voters. We're wasting taxpayers' money. And I think we could do it a better way, sir.
:
Is it a pedophile? Is it the child's grandfather?
That is what we endured, Mr. Chair. You are absolutely right. That happened to us this summer. We did not denounce the move when we resumed sitting in September, but it was this summer that we were flooded with that message. Something has to be done because that is totally unacceptable. That kind of behaviour should be penalized: the person who sent the document should face a penalty. It is too easy to do what Mr. Vellacott did and apologize to the House, especially since he probably did not see—you said it, it is within the central party of the Conservatives—the ten percenter that was sent to your riding.
In any case, you are absolutely right. Thank you for raising a point of privilege. In your case, it is the gun registry. Unfortunately, we are not on the same side. If the Conservatives had sent a ten percenter to your riding commending you for your support of getting rid of the registry, you probably would not have raised that point of privilege.
We need to ask whether it is normal to flood the ridings of colleagues with these ten percenters. I will end with this point. This summer, in the span of two-and-a-half weeks, I received 11 at home. I received an English-only ten percenter from someone by the name of Norlock, in Ontario, and my riding is 99.8% francophone. I got a bilingual one from Mr. Galipeau, and the other nine were happily sent out by Josée Verner, Lawrence Cannon and Maxime Bernier.
If the Conservatives think they are helping their cause by sending out such things.... You should see how many emails we received. And this is the party that is supposed to be the guardian of the public purse. Because I am on the Board of Internal Economy, I cannot reveal how much these ten percenters have cost to date or how much spending has gone up.
If you, the Conservatives, think that you will see a political gain from this kind of activity, you have another thing coming.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Madame, and sir, if I may say in conclusion, thank you all very much, and you're absolutely right: this was an unfortunate circumstance, but out of every unfortunate circumstance there are ways at the end of the day that maybe we can learn something from all of this collectively—not individually but collectively. And maybe, just maybe, we can actually be nicer to one another, and the information that we send across the country using taxpayers' money can be of a kind that either we're building our own party or we're sending out messages about what we've done, or maybe we moved a motion or bill that was very happy.
I looked at Mr. Watson the other day. He moved the unanimous motion on adoption. Fantastic! Now, if he sent that into the riding and said, “You know, your member of Parliament, as a Conservative member, I did this. We got consent from everyone, and this is a great thing for adoptive parents”—beautiful. That's great. If for whatever reason somebody decided to vote against it, like the Bloc did on the issue of the children, that's the Bloc's decision, or the Conservatives', the NDP's, or the Liberals'. How we vote is always important, it's always on the record, but to go and slam people repeatedly on that with taxpayers' money I think needs to cease. I think at the end of the day this committee and others will get together and maybe have a couple of beers, or a glass of red wine from the Niagara region—may I say they have very good wine there—or the Annapolis Valley, and maybe start looking at each other and realize, you know, we're not bad folks. As Bob Dylan says, we sell things from a different point of view.
At the end of the day, we have to be responsible to the taxpayer, and responsible to each other, because tit for tat never works in this game.
Again, I thank the honourable members, and Mr. Chairman, your committee, and you, sir, for the opportunity, and hopefully at the end of the day something good can come out of it. I thank you so much for your time.
Merci beaucoup.