Bill C-31 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.
It also amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things, make operational changes to improve the accuracy of the National Register of Electors, facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate.
It amends the Public Service Employment Act to permit the Public Service Commission to make regulations to extend the maximum term of employment of casual workers.

[Marc Mayrand]

One of the difficulties identified during the course of the study of Bill C-31 was the absence of a national identification card. Because of this, the only cards that truly fill the requirements of Bill C-31 are cards delivered by provincial authorities. However, even these cards are not provided universally to all voters. There was a need to include in Bill C-31 a list of identification documents that could be used as an alternative, and most of them do not bear a photo.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I've just gone through a series of questions noting that up until recently that hadn't been a problem.

I guess my question—and maybe I should leave it with you to respond back to the committee—is whether there are other ways, perhaps, than legislation. I mentioned regulation. There are requirements to give electoral officers the power to discern whether or not someone is complying other than through legislation.

I again underline this, Chair, because we have a piece of legislation making up for a flawed piece of legislation. I certainly don't want to be back here in two months, or whenever, after an election to find out this is a problem as well. For the record, we'll state that's why our party did not support Bill C-31. It was a problem, and it remains a problem.

I will just leave it with our guests to respond if there are other ways—perhaps through regulation—that we can look at this.

The other thing—and we've already heard from our guest on this—is that I understand Mr. Mayrand can't give us a legal opinion on this legislation; that's not his job. So I'm just wondering if the clerk or the chair has had any request to departmental officials, say, from Justice, on the legal aspects of this bill. In other words, are there legal concerns—so we don't end up back here again in a couple months saying we have to have another bill to make up for this bill?

I leave that question for you, and I thank our guests for being here today.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I say that, Mr. Chair, because I'm concerned about the politics of this bill. The concept is fairly sound: have visual identification. The problem is the politics of this bill. And the problem with Bill C-31 was that we were given a flawed bill that we didn't necessarily need; so here we are....

My question to you, Mr. Mayrand, is whether there any other means, through regulation or giving discretion to election officials, by which we can confirm the identity of voters other than through legislation.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I wasn't a member of this committee when it did the report that went into Bill C-31. I don't know whether that approach was examined at the time or not. It might be a worthy subject of study for this committee, if you want to bring it forward.

The broader question of electoral lists is one that certainly has interested me. The move from regular enumeration to a permanent voters list, it was hoped, would solve a lot of the problems. In the early years, people began to wonder if it didn't create a worse problem, and anybody who, in practical terms, whether in running campaigns or as a candidate, has had to work with electors lists saw a lot of those problems. On both sides of the ledger, as a guy running campaigns and as a guy being a candidate, I certainly saw some of those.

I should say, though, that I have been favourably impressed with how the system is getting better. I think the permanent electoral registry is improving. There are still all kinds of problems with it, and mobility is huge. It's fine, if people are interested and motivated to get themselves on the list and have the changes registered, but a lot of people aren't. If you don't have a driver's licence and are not interested in being on the list and don't check off the box on your tax return, it's pretty tough for the list to be up to date.

If you want to examine the notion of whether returning to enumeration is a better idea, that's fine. If you want to study the idea of declaration, that's fine, too. I think at the end of the day, people who are motivated seem, within our system, to be able to vote.

We should note, though, that returning officers are able to provide for enumeration in areas where they believe there has been particularly high mobility, or where they believe—in a new subdivision, for example, where there are new residents who wouldn't be on the permanent voters list because they're all just moving in, in areas of new and rapid growth.... One would hope those are used judiciously.

It's certainly open to all parties and all candidates, in discussing this with their local returning officer, to encourage that this kind of spotty enumeration be undertaken.

So there are mechanisms in place. I don't think we will ever come up with a perfect system. I was initially skeptical of the permanent voters list and thought enumeration was a better way to go, but I'm beginning to be sold on the permanent list as it gets better over time.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The Australian system is very different, of course, as you know. In Australia, there are legal consequences if you do not vote. There is a mandatory requirement for voting, so people are voting for a very different reason. They are voting to avoid a penalty. They are voting to avoid a fine, in many cases. So I would not be surprised that you would find a different pattern of behaviour there.

That being said, I haven't particularly analyzed it. I'm not sure how much wisdom that would provide us, because it is such a different context.

I look at this first trial run—the results that I spoke of that were provided by Elections Canada—that showed a very favourable response in terms of people being able to vote. Most used photo ID, the first preferred option. It was 80% who used a photo identification to vote. Most often that was a driver's licence; 73% of that 80% were using a driver's licence, 73% overall of the 100% who voted. Of those who used option two, 19% used things like hospital cards, utility bills, the attestation letters I referred to, leases, and some of the other ones. I'm sure you've seen the lengthy list of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer has considered to be acceptable, and 1% were vouched for.

In terms of the need for vouching, it appears that we have a roughly comparable number using the attestation letters as being vouched. So in terms of the analysis, there we have it from the first set of elections or by-elections under Bill C-31. And from what I see here, and I'll use this summary from Environics who did the work for Elections Canada--so it's an independent group, independent from Elections Canada. They're not a group interested in showing that it worked; they're a group that was simply looking to analyze it--and I quote here. It says:

The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet and were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most have a favourable view of the new ID provisions.

So my response would be to compliment the members of this committee for the original initiative and the parliamentary committee report that led to Bill C-31, and as well for their work on C-31. Yes, we found subsequently that it's not perfect, and that's why we're here today to correct these glitches. But I think that--

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I asked Elections Canada to canvass my riding, and I was told that some 10,900 people use post-office boxes or live on rural routes. Only 18 people were an exception to this, and they would not have been able to vote if amendments had not been made.

I fully support these amendments, which enable as many people as possible to exercise their right to vote and correct the error made in Bill C-31.

I just wanted to make that comment.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Well, if a student or a homeless person is in a similar situation where they were...they'd be in a position to deal with it.

I know this committee canvassed those issues extensively at the time they dealt with Bill C-31. That's not the content of the bill before us, so I don't want to spend too much time plowing old turf. I think what we're trying to do here is to deal with the specific problem of voters in the rural context for whom identification normally has an address but not a civic address. It's a consequence of the identification problems.

I know there were provisions put in place. The Chief Electoral Officer has included attestation letters from people who run homeless shelters, for example, to deal with the homeless information, and student information from the residence that they live there. These things are all available to protect their interests, so I believe they are more than adequately protected under the bill, which you originally dealt with, C-31, and the Chief Electoral Officer's application to it.

Something that might be of interest to all of you, and this is probably not a bad thing to know about, is that there was a study done by Elections Canada dealing with the application of Bill C-31 in the by-elections in Outremont, Roberval-Lac-St-Jean, and St-Hyacinthe-Bagot. The results are very, very positive. The new requirements worked. The vast majority of voters found the identification requirements easy to meet, and they were quite satisfied with the ID verification and voting process. Most people have a favourable view of the new identification provisions.

The one I thought was most surprising and positive is that 83% of voters said it didn't take any longer to vote using the identification provisions. So from the voters' perception, it was very positive. Overwhelmingly, people had no difficulty providing the identification. For a first-time run in a by-election, that's pretty remarkable. As we indicated, this is the first time that requirement has existed.

I know they did the same in the provincial elections in Ontario. I don't have any statistics for how they worked there, though in the polling station where I was a scrutineer on election day there appeared to be no difficulties with their identification requirements.

It looks like the reforms that this committee brought forward on Bill C-31 are working very well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I just want to again get something on the record here. Let's face it, we all have our partisan interests that we represent aggressively at times. I note, with some interest and much amusement, that over the course of the last few weeks, since Bill C-31 was first discussed and subsequent to that, when we found out there was this gap in the legislation that inadvertently potentially disenfranchised up to a million people, there have been members of opposition parties who have been claiming that this was a fault of the government, pure and simple, nothing more than that, when in fact—and you were quite correct in your assessment, Minister—this was a shared responsibility.

All members of this committee, quite frankly, just missed that one portion of the bill that talked about residential or civic addresses, because rural residents—and I'm one of them—don't technically or legally have a civic address; we have a post office box or a rural route. So it was an honest mistake and a responsibility shared not only by members of this committee but by the elections office officials themselves, because they appeared before this committee on two occasions and at neither time during those discussions were there any indications that this could be a potential problem.

I want to get that on the record, because I know, whether it be the member from Timmins—James Bay or the member from Regina—Wascana or Thunder Bay—Rainy River, they have from time to time made statements publicly that the problem was solely the fault of the government, and again it was not. It was a shared responsibility.

But beyond that partisan politics, I think we need to have assurances—and you've given them, I believe—that this bill, in the consideration of both you and the Chief Electoral Officer, will fix the problem we had. And perhaps more importantly than that, in the event of an early election, whether it be a by-election or a federal election, prior to this bill coming into effect, what assurances do you have, if any, from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would use his power of adaptation to ensure that no rural voter is disenfranchised?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-18, the verification of residence bill, is one designed to ensure that legitimate voters will be able to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote.

I think everybody recalls how we got to where we are. Bill C-31 was passed by this Parliament to improve the integrity of the voting process and prevent voter fraud. The bill was made based on recommendations that came out of this committee in a report that was dated June 20, 2006, and it was a report that was supported by all political parties.

For the first time ever, and many voters comment to me positively about this, the bill required voters to demonstrate their identity and residence before being allowed to vote.

To establish identity and residence, voters must either show one government-issued piece of identification containing a photograph, as well as the name and residential address of the voter; or show two pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, both of which contain the name of the elector, and one of which contains his or her residential address.

Or, the voter must have another registered voter in the same polling division vouch for the elector, after having shown the pieces of identification required to prove his or her own identity and residence.

These new requirements were designed to ensure that those who vote during elections are actually legitimate voters.

With the new requirements, people will no longer be able to pick up voter information cards abandoned at apartment building entrances, and vote under the name of a different voter.

There will also be no way to vote in a riding where the voter works, rather than in the riding where the voter lives, in order to support a particular candidate in a particularly tight race.

Since the bill received royal assent in June, Elections Canada has identified a problem with the requirement for voters to demonstrate their residence before voting.

In defence of this committee, which dealt with the bill originally, it should be said that the problem had not been identified by the Chief Electoral Officer when he originally came to testify before you.

To that extent, while everyone here shares an ownership in the problem, that ownership in the problem is in part because the ownership was spread out and the Chief Electoral Officer did not communicate the problem to you at the time you were originally dealing with the bill.

This problem is that many voters do not have a piece of identification with a civic address that can prove their residence on polling day.

For some voters, the problem lies in that the full municipal address is not provided. Others have one, but it does not appear on their pieces of identity.

It's a problem that arises most often in rural areas across the country. It's most often in these areas that individuals may only have a postal address, such as a post office box, a rural route number attached to a post office, or simply a mailing address that provides for general delivery to a particular post office.

These individuals will be unable to produce identification with a civic address that can establish their residence.

Moreover, because the problem affects particular regions, the voters in question would have trouble finding someone to vouch for them, because their neighbours will probably not have a home address on their piece of identity either.

Now, once the government was informed of this problem by Elections Canada, we moved very quickly to solve it, with the assistance of Elections Canada and in consultation with all the other political parties.

The solution proposed in the bill provides for an address on a piece of identification to prove residence, even a non-civic address if the address is consistent with information about the voter on the list of voters.

When registering to vote--that would be registering for the first time--the voter would have to prove they lived in the polling division where they intend to vote. Since this is the case, we can now use the mailing address that appears on the voters list to corroborate that it is the same voter who has already proven that they reside in this polling division.

The same would apply to someone who vouches for another voter. If the mailing address on his or her pieces of identity corresponds to the information on the voters' list, that will be considered sufficient proof of residence.

An election official or a candidate's representative who has reasonable doubt about a voter's residence will still be able to challenge this voter. In such a case, in order to vote a person would have to take an oath as well.

It's important to note that for individuals not on the voters list, who are seeking to register at an advance poll or on a polling date, to be on the voters list they will still have to show a piece of identification that contains a residential address, or otherwise be vouched for. This is to ensure the integrity of the information in the register and to ensure that those who are registered to vote in the polling division really do reside in that polling division.

Mr. Chair, our verification of residence bill solves the problem of verifying the residence of voters who do not have a civic address on their identification. Now that the government has acted quickly, with the assistance of Elections Canada and in consultation with the other political parties, it's incumbent, I believe, on Parliament to act quickly so that Elections Canada can apply these rules at the earliest possible opportunity.

I'd like to thank you for your attention and answer any questions you may have.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to what you said a little earlier regarding the Chief Electoral Officer's flexibility under bill C-6. You indicated that similar flexibility existed in airports, at customs, etc. I don't exactly agree with you. Being asked to vote with an uncovered face is quite different from having one's clothes taken off or being subjected to a search to determine whether or not you're hiding something illegal. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the same thing.

I also believe that this flexibility is discriminatory insofar as we don't all live in big cities where, at a particular polling station, there may be 20 polling booths and both female and male staff. There are places, in some small municipalities in my riding for example, where there's only a single polling booth, and where the deputy returning officer and poll clerk are all men.

What's a person supposed to do in such a situation? Should you call the returning officer and ask him to send a woman because a veiled female does not want to uncover her face?

In some countries, such as Morocco, where the majority of women are veiled, they are required to take off their veils, whether they are men or women, and there's no problem with that. And yet here, this flexibility is given. It makes me a little uncomfortable. What would happen if groups of women decided by way of protest to go and vote veiled and ask for someone to identify them in a polling booth by showing their faces? This flexibility makes me uncomfortable.

Moreover, have any groups of Muslim women been demanding the right to vote while veiled? You've organized a lot of consultations, so you can tell me what those consultative groups were and whether, among those groups, there were any Muslim women asking to vote while veiled.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

But in the past, prior to bill C-31, there were recognized cases of fraud, weren't there? Is that acknowledged?

Under bill C-31, for example, electoral workers are prevented from testifying that the same individual is attempting to vote. I don't think that if you vote in the morning at a particular polling station, that you're going to be recognized at that same polling station in the afternoon. These employees see thousands of people. If somebody shows two pieces of ID and his or her face, does that really prevent that individual from committing fraud?

And what's more, I'm wondering if there were actually cases of fraud?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Obviously, under that, you don't. I gather that this committee debated previously the notion of national voter registration cards, which came out, I believe, in the discussions in the report that went into the recommendations that led to Bill C-31, and using that kind of approach was rejected. So short of a national voting card with identification, you have to deal with the fact that many Canadians don't have photo ID. That's why the current regime was chosen.

What I can tell you, however, is that when somebody does show their face at a polling station, if they then come to vote again half an hour later, because they have shown their face--even if they have someone else's identification--it will be possible for the scrutineers, the election officials working at that polling station, to notice that it's the same person again trying to vote fraudulently using someone else's identification.

When you're talking about maintaining the integrity of the electoral process to prevent voter fraud, even without photo identification, even when other pieces of identification are used, you have a positive and salutary effect on enhancing the integrity of the electoral process. That's what this is all about, fundamentally.

The two bills we're dealing with today are both building on Bill C-31. They're dealing with unanticipated consequences or interpretations that came out of Bill C-31. In that sense, if we're looking for our original intent, which comes from Bill C-31, to increase the integrity of the voter process, to reduce voter fraud, this will go some distance to advancing that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

No, I don't think it gets you around visual identification. Everyone is going to have to show their face. There will obviously not always be a match to identification, because as this committee learned when it examined the issue originally under Bill C-31, there's a significant part of the population that doesn't have government-issued identification with photographs. Hence, there's a more flexible regime, and the Chief Electoral Officer has come up with a very lengthy list of acceptable identification—some people say too lengthy a list—but everybody showing up at a polling station will be required to show their face. That will allow political party scrutineers to ensure that the same person doesn't show up at three polling stations to vote, or vote three times at same polling station, or to keep showing up for every family member who happens not to be interested in coming to exercise their vote.

Certainly that's always been one of the concerns about processes where the ballots all get mailed to the people's homes and then they vote for everybody in their family, mailing in the ballots. I once had a property where there was a municipal referendum, and although there was nobody actually resident at the household at that time, seven ballots for previous residents showed up there for people to vote. Anybody who wanted could have, in similar situations, voted many times. We don't want that kind of situation.

The rules on the books here are very different. If somebody is voting, for example, by mail-in ballot, the other option, we have the two exceptions. One is for the medical condition and the other one is by the mail-in ballot, and obviously you don't have to show it. But there, as I've indicated earlier, you have the application form, the requirements for identification being provided, the lengthy scrutinizing opportunity for the Elections Canada officials, the requirement for birthdate and for gender, and the requirement for the signature on the application form, which has to be compared to the signature on the identification that's provided. None of these are requirements for the day of voting where the visual identification is required.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It's obviously our hope that the bill we are looking at will provide sufficient direction. He was looking for explicit, clear direction, rather than applying an interpretation. I think he also acknowledged he could have equally interpreted the law on the books, Bill C-31, in the other direction to require people to show their identification. We simply encouraged him to do that.

I think here it will not be equally open to him to interpret it either way, but to interpret it in the way we are clearly...it's really now a very clear statutory intent to require visual identification.

The unfortunate thing about it, and I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has learned from this, is that, as far as I know, nobody was asking, no cultural communities in Canada were asking for the right to vote without showing their faces. The major Muslim organizations that appeared on this issue made clear they didn't seek special treatment, they sought equal treatment. They want to be treated the same as everybody else.

The unfortunate consequence of his decision was to thrust, as Marlene Jennings said, these folks into the spotlight, to cause them to be the centre of a controversy that was not of their making, a controversy that only occurred because of an interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a special treatment to a group in society that was not seeking any special treatment. I think some of the negative social impacts of that were unfortunate. I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has taken note of those and has learned from the experience.

I know, when the matter in Bill C-31 was before the committee originally there was a suggestion that he would consult extensively with communities before dealing with the bill and finding out the mechanics of how to make it work. I gather that if there was consultation, it was not that extensive, because certainly those major groups came here saying this was an interpretation they didn't seek and did not want, and they didn't appreciate being targeted.

It's my hope that by this legislation we'll be able to restore that kind of social peace, that people will see that everyone is getting equal treatment. There won't be an artificial controversy that targets anybody. I think all the individuals affected, the affected communities, will be better off for it and all Canadian society will be stronger for it.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here in this room, notwithstanding the terrible acoustics under the portrait of the fathers of Confederation and Sir John A. Macdonald done by Rex Woods, especially after a weekend of enjoying that great national cultural event, the Grey Cup, in which people from all across our country come together to share what they have in common in a way that Sir John A. Macdonald would have wanted them to, by enjoying the odd beverage and having a good time. Tom is, of course, very proud of his Saskatchewan Roughriders and the result.

I want to start by thanking all the members of the committee, including you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the government's visual identification of voters bill. The government introduced Bill C-31 in the last session of Parliament. It was a bill to improve the integrity of the voting process and to prevent voter fraud, and while the legislation made many changes, the one we are dealing with today responds to how that bill was interpreted by the Chief Electoral Officer in the conduct of applying the voter identification requirements.

Before Bill C-31 was enacted, voters could simply turn up at a polling station, give their name and their address, and vote.

Since then, and for the first time, voters will have to establish their identity and indicate their place of residence before being able to vote.

After Bill C-31 received royal assent on June 22, 2007, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer decided that the changes would be implemented in time for the September 17, 2007, by-elections in Quebec.

Later, the Chief Electoral Officer publicly stated that contrary to what I believe Parliament's intent was—namely, that voters would have to demonstrate their identity before voting—people would be permitted to vote while concealing their face.

Beside the fact that it's not logical for someone to demonstrate their identity while concealing their face, the decision went against what I think most people saw as common sense, and it left many people shaking their heads. All of us, as parliamentarians, probably heard about it from our constituents.

The government was of the opinion that this interpretation of the act did not take into account Parliament's clear will and intentions, and called on the Chief Electoral Officer to review his decision.

The government was not alone in asking for this. All four political parties in the House of Commons expressed disagreement with the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation, and in September this committee, on a recorded motion, unanimously passed the following motion:

That the committee call on the Electoral Officer to use his powers of adaptation to require electors to show their faces before being permitted to vote at voting stations across the country.

Moreover, many other members of Parliament from all political parties expressed their support for the requirement to demonstrate visual identity. For example, on September 7, 2007, Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party, issued a statement that said the following:

...we do believe that when they are casting a vote in elections, Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities. For this reason, we would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision, and to require veiled women to unveil their faces to confirm their identities.

Later, on September 10, 2007, he told the Canadian press, “We disagree with Elections Canada's decision and we ask them to revisit their decision”, and then again later the same day, “At the end of the day, you must be able to identify yourself when you vote.”

On October 24, 2007, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings told the Montreal Gazette, “I think that people showing their faces for identification purposes to vote is fine.” She went on to say:

“Most of the Muslim community say so as well. They didn't ask for the ruling that the chief electoral officer made. Nobody had asked for the right to vote with their faces covered. It was a unilateral decision on the part of the chief electoral officer.”

I think that Madam Jennings hit the nail on the head when she said that, and that is in fact why we are here. It is not because of any decision or action taken by parliamentarians in adopting Bill C-31, but rather in consequence of the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer and his reluctance to accede to the advice of this committee when the matter was discussed in September.

The Canadian Press reported that “NDP Leader Jack Layton said he continues to hold out hope that Mayrand”—that's the Chief Electoral Officer—“will change his position before the byelections, but is prepared to support a legislative move. 'If not, it appears it will be necessary to change the law to make it clear.'” During committee hearings in September, Mr. Dewar said the following: “...the position from our party has been clear. ...that you show your face; the veil has to be removed to get your ballot.”

However, despite the overwhelming support from the party leaders and members of Parliament for voters to show their faces before voting, the Chief Electoral Officer refused to heed that expressed intent of Parliament and of the committee, and on election day we saw the consequences of that decision. In several places in the ridings in Quebec where the by-elections were occurring, people voted while purposefully concealing their faces for no justifiable reason. I think we recall seeing on television one even wearing a pumpkin on their head.

Throughout Canada, these actions and the fact that these folks were permitted to vote in that fashion caused a lot of Canadians to question the credibility and the integrity of our voting process—exactly the opposite of what we were seeking to do with Bill C-31. When people start to ridicule the rules that are in place for an election, that starts to erode public confidence in our system.

I don't believe we as parliamentarians can stand by and allow this to continue; certainly we in the government don't believe we can. We have to ensure that public confidence in our electoral system is maintained.

To maintain that confidence and ensure that the will of Parliament is respected, the government has committed to making the necessary legislative changes, which are in the bill we are discussing with you today. That bill flows directly from the commitment in the October 2000 throne speech.

The legislation sets out a simple requirement for a voter to show their face before voting. It will assist in voter identification, reduce the potential for voter fraud, and enhance the integrity and credibility of the voting process. In short, our bill will prevent someone from, if you will, putting a bed sheet over their head and then going to vote first for themselves and then, using the identification of someone else in their family, voting again somewhere else with someone else's identification—a friend's identification, or bills they've picked up in the mail room of the apartment building, or what not.

The bill also makes Parliament's intent explicit in law, preventing any future disagreements on what the intent of this act is.

There is one exception: an individual may vote with a concealed face if he or she has valid medical reasons to do so.

For example, if a person was severely burned and her face is covered in bandages, she can still vote on the provision that she swear an oath attesting to the fact that uncovering her face would be dangerous to her health.

The bill also takes into consideration the fact that some, because of their cultural customs, cover their faces in public. The bill allows--in fact I argue that they already have this--an additional administrative flexibility for Elections Canada to establish the processes they may need to require visual identification while respecting cultural practices, but the bottom line of equal treatment will be maintained.

It's a position that was supported by NDP Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair. Stéphane Dion felt the same way. He said the following in a statement on September 7, 2007: “We would also propose that female Elections Canada officials be available to confirm the identities of veiled women, thus ensuring their values and privacy are respected.”

The Canadian Islamic Congress agrees as well. The Montreal Gazette reported on September 8 that Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress said the solution is as simple as having women who wear a niqab show their faces to female elections officials.

The government believes our bill is a sensible compromise between respecting cultural customs and maintaining the integrity and credibility of the voting process.

Some critics have claimed our bill is unnecessary because there is no evidence of a problem. Even if this were true, that's surely not a reason for doing nothing, but in fact there is, as we've seen, a problem. Certainly we don't want to wait until we see many documented cases of electoral fraud before we put in processes to prevent that fraud from occurring. The government isn't going to wait for that, and that's why we're taking action now, I think as all parties want us to do.

Nevertheless, it's important for this committee and for Canadians to know that the government did not want to go down this road. We don't believe every single detail of how elections are run and how electoral officers do their work should be made explicit in law. We don't need to sit there and prescribe which pencil or pen or ruler electoral officials use when they check people off the list. However, the Chief Electoral Officer continues to interpret the law in this way, which we know is contrary to what was the expressed will and intent of Parliament and of this committee. That makes it necessary for us in this case to act. The result is our visual identification of voters bill.

The bill requires electors to show their face at the polling station before being able to vote, with the stipulation that an exception be made for medical reasons and accommodation made for persons who normally cover their face in public.

The bill will protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the voting process and ensure that the will and intent of Parliament are respected.

I hope all members of the committee will work with the government to ensure successful passage of this bill. I'd be happy, along with Ms. Kim, to take any questions you have on the subject.