To show how frivolous is the idea to use referenda, Mr. Rick Mercer of the This Hour Has 22 Minutes TV show, started (see a see a video clip) an online petition on about Nov. 14 asking the government to hold a referendum to force Mr. Day to change his first name to Doris.
From the evening to midnight (CST) of Nov. 15, the number of signatures on this petition increased from 60,000 to over 300,000! It eventually rose to over a million signatures in the following few days. (It's not clear, how many people actually signed - Mr. Mercer's petition seemed to be an example of how not to design an online poll/petition. It happily accepted the same name and address submitted repeatedly from the same computer, which is something that could be quite easily prevented.)
Mr. Mercer wanted to make a point that every idiot could be able to start a referendum that would force one's moral or aesthetic standards on others. But he somehow overlooked that to be successful, this idiot would need to find at least 350,000 other idiots to cosign the petition. Apparently, there are more than enough idiots in Canada to sign a silly petition ...
Nowhere in this uproar was left much if any space for serious discussion of DD. No mention that already now the electronic technology exists for the governments to consult citizens on regular basis on issues that are really important, and that have effect on the lives on all. No mention that in DD any vote should be preceeded by thorough discussion.
Advocates of DD should think hard about this incident, and about how to prevent the misuse of referenda to force one's moral or aesthetic standards on others. Or the fear of such misuse.
M. Kolar, Dec. 7, 2000
Subject: "Doris" and referendum facts Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 To: cdd-l@cdd.bc.ca Forwarded message: from Ted White, M.P. North Vancouver Canadian Alliance Direct Democracy Critic =============== To Anyone Interested In Referendum Policy: I have had dozens of calls over the past week from candidates and voters wanting details of my Private Member's Bill (C-229), which was at the heart of all media feeding frenzy on Citizens' Initiated Referenda. Please keep in mind while reading the following outline of the Bill that this is framework legislation, not a Government Bill, and that it contains too much detail to be quoted as official Canadian Alliance policy. As a Government we would encourage public input to help put together the best possible legislation. Bill C-229 took about 18 months to research and write. It is 28 pages long, and is far too detailed to list here in its entirety, but on request I can email copies to interested persons. Please note that the 3% figure for a petition to force a referendum is based on the figure used in other countries which have citizens' initiated referenda. New Zealand used 2% of the total number of voters, and California uses 3%. There is nothing outrageous or unusual about a proposal of 3%, although a "made in Canada" figure is obviously up for discussion. The real focus though should be on 50%+1, which is number required for a referendum success, except on constitution amendments which require two thirds of the provinces with more than 50% of the population. A petition is NOT a referendum. Here is a synopsis of the proposals contained in the Bill: 1. The legislation does not simply allow a Mr John Doe to start a petition, on any subject, and force a referendum on that subject. Before John can even get the first signature on a petition he would first have to submit the idea to the Clerk of the House of Commons, who immediately places the issue before a Judicial Review Committee. The Committee, made up of 3 judges of the Federal Court must rule whether the proposal is (a) within Federal jurisdiction, and (b) constitutional. It is quite clear under this part of the Bill, except to the media it seems, that a referendum to, say, ban abortion, would not be possible using my Bill because the courts ruled in 1998 that a ban is not constitutional. Neither could there be a referendum on funding abortions because this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. There could, however, be a referendum on setting up a federal fund to educate people as to the alternatives to abortion if a successful petition on this subject was submitted. 2. Assuming Mr John Doe's idea is certified as valid by the Judicial Review Committee, the petition may be started. It must contain a full description of the proposal, along with an estimate of the costs or savings to the Treasury. Signatures may be then be collected over a 12 month period. 3. Once signature collection is completed, the petition is delivered to the Clerk of the House of Commons for signature verification. A sampling of 5,000 names is given to Elections Canada and if Elections Canada is satisfied with their validity then the Clerk of the House of Commons will advise the petitioner of success. 4. Once a successful petition has been laid before the House of Commons, the Prime Minister is obliged to immediately set a date for the referendum to be held within 12 months. The referendum may coincide with a general election. 5. The referendum may be DEFERRED by a vote of 70% of the Members of the House of Commons IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED THAT IT WILL ENACT THE MEASURE WITHOUT A REFERENDUM (BASED ON THE SUCCESS OF THE PETITION). I built this provision into the Bill to cover the situation where it becomes obvious during the petitioning period that there is significant public support for the proposal. 6. Assuming that a referendum is actually held, and the measure passes, there is one more hurdle to overcome. That hurdle is the fact that under a parliamentary system it is not possible to make the referendum binding. Like it or not, the Governor General has the power, at least theoretically, as the Queen's representative, to reject a measure passed by Parliament and the Senate. I have addressed this problem by deeming the legislation to enact a successful referendum to have passed second reading in the House of Commons. By being deemed to have passed second reading, the measure escapes the committee process which might have allowed the Government to modify the provision, but provides the opportunity for a short debate followed by a vote to give legitimacy to the proposal in the House of Commons. There is then a compelling reason for the Senate to pass the measure and for the GG to give it royal assent. ========== So there, in a short form, is a description of my framework legislation. Over the years, in my role as Direct Democracy Critic, the most common subjects presented to me as topics for a referendum petition have been: 1. An end to concurrent sentencing for serious crimes 2. Repeal of Section 745 of the Criminal Code - Faint Hope Clause 3. The Decriminalisation of marijuana. Yours truly Ted White, MP Canadian Alliance Direct Democracy Critic Tel (604) 980-5300 electtedwhite@aol.com