Latest news with #ReferendumAct
Montreal Gazette
4 days ago
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: Another Quebec referendum? If so, let's enforce a clear question this time
Op Eds Although a majority of Quebecers might wish otherwise, the Parti Québécois could very well win the Oct. 5, 2026 provincial election, along with a mandate to hold a third referendum on separation. That is a scenario many of us would rather not think about, but we must prepare nonetheless. How? First, changes should be brought to the Quebec Referendum Act so that, if another referendum is indeed held, the question will be crystal clear. We all know the 1980 and 1995 questions were confusing. Does anyone doubt this was intentional? We must not allow it to happen again. There are precedents. The question in the 2014 referendum in Scotland was: 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' For the Brexit consultation in 2016: 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' Closer to home, in Alberta, a group of separatists have submitted the following text: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' All those questions are perfectly clear and not slanted in any way. If such an approach is good for the U.K., Scotland and Alberta, why would Quebec separatists be able to impose a convoluted question, so that voters are confused into voting for something they do not really want? Currently, Clause 8 of the Referendum Act gives the governing party the arbitrary power to write the question and vote it by a simple majority in the National Assembly. Therefore, a PQ majority government would be allowed to decide — once again on its own — one of the most important rules of the game. This is neither fair nor democratic. The Act should be amended so that all political parties recognized in the National Assembly must approve the text of the question. The PQ would oppose such a change, but I have no doubt most Quebecers would be in favour, because they are democrats. This is something the Legault government, with its majority in parliament, and certainly the support of the Liberals, can do right away. Amending the Referendum Act is not the only thing federalists can do to prepare. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon seems to be popular among Quebecers in large part because he appears reasonable and rational. The impression is that he does politics differently. In fact, he is arguably the most extreme leader the PQ has ever had. St-Pierre Plamondon believes, sincerely it appears, that independence will magically solve all the problems the province faces. He envisages that an independent Quebec would abandon the Canadian dollar in favour of a Quebec currency. He never talks about an association with the rest of Canada; his project is a radical break, not René Lévesque's sovereignty-association. Consistent with this 'rational' approach, the PQ will publish, in the next few months, a 'blue paper' on separation. Federalists should be ready to respond to each and every argument put forward by this document. Remember that two years ago, the party issued a 'Year One budget' that was lauded by many commentators as a rigorous report. A few months later, three economists and I showed how, in fact, the text grossly underestimates the costs of independence. This is the type of work that must be done, starting now: challenging the separatist agenda at every corner. Many might think that such a strategy is premature, that even if the Péquistes win the election next year, they will face the reality that most Quebecers do not want another referendum. However, the 1995 referendum here and the 2016 Brexit consultation showed that once the referendum ball starts rolling, anything can happen. In other words, waiting is a losing strategy. For those of us who want Quebec and Canada to win, now is not too soon to begin preparing. This story was originally published August 6, 2025 at 6:55 AM.
Cision Canada
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Cision Canada
Commissioner of Canada Elections releases 2024-2025 annual report Français
GATINEAU, QC , /CNW/ - Today, the Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE), Caroline J. Simard, released her annual report for 2024-2025. The report provides an overview of the activities of her office between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025. It highlights the work accomplished during this period and presents statistics related to compliance and enforcement activities as well as complaints and referrals received by her office. Election readiness was at the forefront of the office's activities this year and staff across the organization were engaged in efforts to prepare for the 45 th federal general election. During this time, the office's structure and tools were also significantly modernized with a view to responding more effectively to the challenges of modern elections. "The organizational transformation initiated by the office has strengthened our ability to handle increasingly complex files and adapt to the evolving dynamics of the electoral landscape. Processing complaints related to the 45 th general election remains a key priority for the months ahead." The report also underscores the CCE's commitment to countering foreign interference, including her participation in the second phase of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. Finally, in 2024-2025, the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections enhanced its international presence by organizing the first-ever International Forum on Electoral Law Enforcement, while also strengthening ties with key partners by updating service agreements and memoranda of understanding. The Commissioner of Canada Elections is the independent officer responsible for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act (CEA) and the Referendum Act are complied with and enforced. The Commissioner and her staff handle complaints about federal elections and conduct reviews and investigations to determine if there has been a contravention of the CEA. The Commissioner may take any action deemed appropriate to ensure that the CEA is complied with and enforced. For complaints and non-media-related enquiries please use our online form.
Sky News AU
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Even a broad church has boundaries: Sussan Ley, Ted O'Brien's openly republican views at odds with the values the Liberal Party was founded upon
The Liberal Party now has two new leaders, Sussan Ley and Ted O'Brien. Until evidence arises to the contrary, both can be regarded as staunch advocates for an Australian republic – and that's of some consequence. Ley has featured in advertising material for the Australian Republic Movement, published in 2022. In the same year – during the same month as our late Queen's death, no less – she took it upon herself to pen an op-ed for the Daily Mail in which she encouraged republicans' agenda, writing, 'I know Australia is big enough and old enough to have a fresh look at this debate.' O'Brien served as Chairman of the Australian Republic Movement from 2005 to 2007. In my even-more youthful years, and with fervour to match, I wrote extensively on how it is 'oxymoronic' for one to be a republican Liberal politician. In 1954, to celebrate its tenth anniversary, Robert Menzies crystalised the Liberal Party's doctrinal beliefs in his 'We Believe' propositions; these are readily available online. Those propositions, I contend, are listed hierarchically; that is, from the first follows the second, from the second follows the third, and so on. Thus, that the 'We Believe' propositions begin like this should be of no surprise: 'We believe in the Crown as the enduring embodiment of our national unity and as the symbol of that unity and as the symbol of that other unity that exists between all nations of the British Commonwealth.' At the apex of the Australian Constitution is the Crown; from the Crown descends our nation's democratic, legislative and judicial authority, as well as much, much else. I wonder what might Menzies make of the fact that republicans are, yet again, at the Liberal Party's helm? Regardless, if republicanism lurks in Ley's and O'Brien's hearts, so be it; in our free country, they are entitled to their private views – even if those views are totally at odds with their party's values. What cannot be allowed to happen, however, is this: that the Liberal Party of Australia becomes a complicit mechanism in Labor's never-tiring agenda to bring about an Australian republic. During its last term, this agenda led the Albanese Government to commit shameless acts, such as instituting the first-ever Assistant Minister for the Republic, a Minister of the Crown tasked with, incredibly, removing the Crown. In fact, nearly every constitutional and civic policy decision made during Anthony Albanese's prime ministership – the Voice, the changes to the Referendum Act's machinery provisions, the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, and the removal of the Queen's effigy from our five-dollar note – has been in aid of republicanism. As succinctly as I can, I'll explain why. Following defeat in the 1999 republic referendum, Yes campaigners drew what they continue to believe a critical conclusion: that it is virtually impossible to affect constitutional change in Australia if such change is presented too complexly. In contrast, whereas the 1999 referendum leant too heavily upon technical legal argument, its 2023 successor threw technical argument to the wind, relying instead upon the weaponisation of voters' emotions. Both strategies caused confusion, sowed fear and ended in defeat. Be assured, that had the Voice carried, we'd have been catapulted straight into another republic debate, argued in the same fashion as the Voice, and we'd have voted in a second republic referendum this year. After all, Labor was desperately hoping its President of Australia would be inaugurated in 2025, to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of Gough Whitlam's dismissal. And so, last year, our just-elected prime minister told the Guardian: 'Referendums are hard to win in this country, and we've seen, I think, that all it takes is opposition.' It is this democratic right, the right to oppose, that serves as the central bulwark against republicans' ambitions. In our Commonwealth parliament, that right has, for the most part, been loyally championed by the Coalition's senior partner, the Liberal Party, one founded upon the time-tested value that constitutional monarchy is the most stable system of government yet devised. It is bipartisan parliamentary support for a republic, then, that most endangers the Crown's continuity. The Australian Monarchist League, which comprises many grassroots Liberals, is committed to keeping close watch over the constitutional dealings of Australia's federal representatives. I'll conclude with this: John Howard was right to describe the Liberal Party as a 'broad church'. But churches have roofs, and they have walls. The Liberal Party cannot continue constructing outhouse after outhouse to accommodate illiberal, anti-Menzian policies. To offer any formal support to a republic would be the party's most wayward endeavour yet. Alexander Voltz is a composer. As well as contributing to he is the founding Music Editor of Quadrant, and writes also for The Spectator Australia. He directed The Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert, Australia's largest musical tribute during the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. His music has been performed across the country and abroad.
Edmonton Journal
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Braid: Will 'yes' vote on independence force Premier Smith to act? She won't say
Article content The question to Premier Danielle Smith was as blunt as I could make it. Article content Article content If Albertans vote 'yes' to separation in a referendum, would she proceed to pull Alberta out of Canada? The premier did not say no. Neither did she say yes. 'Until I see an actual question with 177,000 signatures of Albertans that are supportive of it, it's difficult for me to know what that looks like,' she said at Tuesday's news conference. Article content 'I did say (Monday) in my commentary that I will respect the wishes of Albertans, and at the moment, they're a bit undefined about what it is Albertans want to do. 'I think if an election were held today, it (Alberta independence) would get about 30 per cent support. 'So that's why I want to make sure that those numbers do not get higher and . . . end up going lower because we're successful in negotiating a new arrangement with Canada.' Article content Smith is setting up the referendum idea as a pressure valve for angry Albertans. She'll let them get signatures while she tries to get a deal with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Her personal view is clear — she's no separatist, yet. She seems to follow the Free Alberta Strategy that sees independence as a last resort. But her referendum vote could be the best thing that ever happened to Alberta separatism. The signature drive will motivate our separatists to organize, raise money and work hard. They'll pick up sympathizers along the way. They have Smith's full approval to give it a try. Article content Article content Postmedia's Rahim Mohamed asked a crucial question — would she allow her MLAs and ministers to campaign for one side or the other in a referendum campaign? Smith said the UCP was founded in 2017 with a declaration of 'loyalty to a united Canada and a commitment for Alberta to be a leader in the Canadian Federation.' That suggests campaigning for separatism would be disloyal to the party and maybe cause for ejection from caucus. But, again, Smith didn't say MLAs should be neutral. 'I'm not going to be demonizing anybody who may have a different view than me,' she said at one point. 'All I can do is try to convince people that my view is right, that it's worth giving it a try, it's worth doing the negotiation and it's worth trying to find some way for the federal government to compromise.' Article content Red Deer MLA Jason Stephan has already said he wants this referendum to happen, and he's no fan of today's Canada. The Brexit debate in the U.K. ripped apart the ruling Conservative Party. Division brought four prime ministers in successive short-term rises and falls. Alberta's Referendum Act does not generally make a referendum vote binding on the government, but makes exceptions for some constitutional matters. It's hard to imagine a more obvious constitutional issue than a province leaving Canada. First Nations are already in a fury over possible violations to their constitutional rights. Smith will have to be very clear on that question before any vote is held. Would this be a binding vote, or just another of the UCP's ingenious ways to let people blow off steam? The UCP had a fair deal panel under former Premier Jason Kenney. Now there will be an Alberta Next panel. Smith herself will be out there asking people what they want Alberta to look like in the future. Article content She casually throws in provocative statements like the following: 'There's quite a bit of law internationally that says that if you are a separate nation, one nation cannot landlock another. 'It's sort of a given that it is an inappropriate use of power to prevent a jurisdiction from being able to get its resources to market.' She was talking in the context of corridors within Canada, but suddenly added a whiff of separatism. Carney was asked about this Alberta referendum after his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington. 'Canada is stronger when we work together,' said the ex-Edmontonian. 'As an Albertan, I firmly believe that you can always ask the question, but I know what I would respond, clearly.' In Alberta, something else is clear. We're heading for a vote that will raise passions to heights unseen since the 1980s. Latest National Stories
Cision Canada
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Cision Canada
Commissioner of Canada Elections announces six administrative monetary penalties and an undertaking for Canada Elections Act violations
GATINEAU, QC, May 6, 2025 /CNW/ - The Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE), Caroline J. Simard, announced today the publication of six administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and an undertaking to address violations under the Canada Elections Act (the Act). To maintain transparency, and as required by the Act, summaries of AMPs are published on the CCE's website. Notices of violation imposing AMPs were issued to: An official agent for a candidate during the 43 rd federal general election who failed to provide the campaign's financial returns within the required deadline. Two official agents for candidates during the 44 th federal general election who failed to dispose of the campaign's surplus within 60 days. An official agent during the 2019 federal general election who failed to comply with a term and condition of an undertaking they had signed with the Office of the CCE. Two individuals who voted twice in the same electoral district during the 2021 federal general election. The AMPs were reviewed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the amount was confirmed. AMPs are administrative tools that the Commissioner can use to address violations under the Act. They aim to promote compliance with the Act. More information about AMPs can be found in the CCE's Policy for the Administrative Monetary Penalty Regime. An undertaking is a pledge made by a person or entity that did not comply with a requirement of the Act and accepted by the Commissioner. Undertakings aim to ensure compliance with the Act. The CCE is responsible for ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the Act and the Referendum Act. The Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections is distinct from Elections Canada and carries out a different mandate. For complaints and non-media-related enquiries, please use our online form.
