Bill C‑408 amends the federal Referendum Act to add the “reform of the electoral system of Canada” to the kinds of questions the Governor in Council may put to a referendum, and it changes the timing rule for referendum writs so they must be dated no later than the 36th day before polling day. The bill also replaces the Act’s long title to reflect that referendums may concern electoral reform as well as the Constitution.
The change is procedural and narrow in text but potentially consequential in practice. It gives the federal cabinet a clear statutory route to seek a nationwide (or province‑specific) vote on electoral-system change, and it creates an explicit mechanism to run that vote concurrently with a general election — a move with implications for costs, turnout, provincial relations, and legal risk over how any result would be implemented.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts “reform of the electoral system of Canada” into the Referendum Act’s list of subjects the Governor in Council may put to a referendum and revises the Act’s writ timing rule so referendum writs cannot be dated later than the 36th day before polling day.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include the federal cabinet (Governor in Council), Elections Canada (which administers referendums), political parties and campaigns, and provincial governments in places where a province is specified in a proclamation.
Why It Matters
By statute, the federal government would have a clearer tool to ask Canadians about electoral‑system reform and to do so alongside a general election — lowering the administrative barrier to a referendum but raising constitutional, intergovernmental and administrative questions about how results are interpreted and implemented.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three compact edits to the Referendum Act. First it updates the Act’s long title to say it provides for referendums on the Constitution and on electoral reform, which is mainly a statement of scope.
The substantive change is to subsection 3(1): where the Governor in Council already has power to proclaim a referendum to obtain electors’ opinion on constitutional questions, the bill adds electoral‑system reform as a second permissible subject and preserves the power to limit a proclamation to Canada as a whole or to one or more specified provinces.
Second, the bill revises the timing rule for writs for referendums. It replaces the existing language in subsections 6(5)–(7) with a single restriction that writs of referendum must not be dated later than the 36th day before polling day.
That timing rule aligns the statutory dating requirement with a window that makes concurrent scheduling with a general election practicable.The bill does not alter other parts of the Referendum Act: it does not add a specific voting threshold, change how questions are to be worded, or change the administrative responsibilities already assigned to the Chief Electoral Officer. It likewise does not amend the Constitution or the constitutional amendment formulas; nothing in the text creates a shortcut past constitutional requirements for matters that legally require an amendment.
In practice, though, making electoral reform referable and easier to hold at election time lowers the political and administrative barriers to proposing system changes by referendum.Finally, the text leaves important open questions. The bill does not define the scope of “reform of the electoral system” (for example, whether it covers representation formulas, the voting method, or redistribution), nor does it state whether a referendum result would be binding on Parliament or merely advisory.
Those implementation details would fall to subsequent political or legal processes and are likely to spur intergovernmental discussion and legal scrutiny.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Bill C‑408 amends the long title of the Referendum Act to add electoral reform as a permissible subject.
It replaces subsection 3(1) so the Governor in Council may proclaim a referendum on the Constitution or on reform of Canada’s electoral system, for all of Canada or for specific provinces.
The bill replaces subsections 6(5)–(7) with a rule that writs of referendum shall not be dated later than the 36th day before polling day.
The timing change makes it practicable, by statute, to run a referendum on electoral reform at the same time as a federal general election.
The bill does not set voting thresholds, specify question wording, or state whether a successful referendum would be binding on Parliament.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds electoral reform to the Act’s stated scope
The bill replaces the Act’s long title so it reads as providing for referendums on the Constitution and on electoral reform. That change is primarily declaratory — it signals Parliament’s intent to expand the Act’s subject matter but has no operational effect by itself. Practically, it functions as legislative housekeeping to align the Act’s header with the textual amendment that follows.
Expands Governor in Council proclamation power to include electoral reform
This is the core substantive amendment: where the Governor in Council could proclaim a referendum to obtain electors’ opinions on constitutional questions, the text now also authorizes referendums on the reform of Canada’s electoral system. The provision preserves the existing discretion to limit a proclamation to the entire country or to one or more provinces, which means the federal cabinet can choose a national referendum or a province‑specific one. The section does not define the term “reform of the electoral system,” leaving scope questions for subsequent decisions or litigation.
Sets a 36‑day writ dating rule that enables concurrent scheduling
The bill replaces the existing multi‑sentence restriction with a concise rule: writs for referendums must not be dated later than the 36th day before polling day. That timing requirement creates a clear outer limit for issuing referendum writs and aligns the statutory timeline with the practical calendar used for federal elections, removing a procedural obstacle to holding a referendum on the same day as a general election. Administratively, this concentrates planning and requires Elections Canada to synchronize referendum preparations with election logistics when the two are run together.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Electoral‑reform advocates — They gain a clearer statutory mechanism by which the federal cabinet can put reform proposals directly to voters, lowering an administrative hurdle to a public vote.
- Federal government (Governor in Council) — The cabinet gets a more flexible tool to seek public endorsement on electoral reform and to time referendums to coincide with elections, which can reduce separate scheduling costs and increase visibility.
- Voters — If a referendum is run alongside a general election, voters face fewer separate trips to the polls and turnout for the referendum is likely to be higher than for a stand‑alone vote.
- Budget‑conscious policymakers — Running a referendum concurrently with an election can reduce incremental administrative spending compared with a separate referendum date.
Who Bears the Cost
- Elections Canada — The agency must absorb increased planning complexity and operational load when an election and a referendum are combined, including ballot design, voter information and recount procedures.
- Provincial governments — Where a proclamation targets one or more provinces, provinces may face political and legal pressures and administrative coordination costs; provinces may also dispute federal authority to single them out for a referendum on matters touching provincial interests.
- Political parties and campaigns — Parties will have compressed timelines and must allocate resources between election campaigning and referendum campaigning, potentially amplifying message conflation and strategic campaigning.
- Federal Parliament — A referendum result does not automatically change legislation; Parliament (and possibly ministers tasked with implementing a mandate) will bear the political and legislative burden of translating any result into law.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between democratic expediency — making it easier and cheaper to put electoral‑system change to a public vote, including alongside an election — and institutional legitimacy and legal clarity — ensuring that any referendum is properly scoped, legally effective, respectful of federal–provincial divisions, and followed by a clear, lawful implementation process. The bill facilitates quick public consultation but leaves unanswered how that consultation translates into binding, constitutionally valid reform.
The bill is short and tightly focused, but that economy of language creates substantive ambiguity. It adds “reform of the electoral system” without definition, leaving open whether a referendum could cover matters that implicate the Constitution or provincial jurisdiction (for example, changes to the Senate, representation of provinces, or anything falling within provincial competence).
The text does not specify whether referendums are binding or advisory, nor does it set a required approval threshold; absent such detail, a successful referendum could be politically persuasive but legally non‑binding, inviting contestation over what counts as a mandate for legislative change.
Holding a referendum concurrently with a general election reduces cost and can boost turnout, but it also compresses campaigns and raises voter‑information challenges: voters may conflate referendum questions with party platforms, and simultaneous ballots increase the risk of confusion or spoiled ballots. Intergovernmental friction is a real implementation risk — provinces might object to federal decisions to hold province‑specific referendums, or litigate the scope of questions.
Finally, by not addressing post‑referendum implementation, the bill shifts crucial decisions to future political processes: who drafts enabling legislation, what thresholds trigger legal change, and how constitutional constraints will be respected remain unresolved.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.