Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to require that electors have their faces uncovered before voting, or registering to vote, in person, and supplements the authority of Elections Canada to appoint sufficient personnel to manage the conduct of the vote at the polls.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's begin our meeting today.

Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), a meeting has been requested by four members of the committee to discuss whether or not they will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters) at the following meeting of the committee, and what witnesses and budget and meeting allocations will be required to complete such a study.

Colleagues, the purpose of this meeting, then, is to discuss whether or not the committee will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6 at the next meeting and how the committee will study it.

I just want to remind members, as we're getting used to these 106(4)s, that ultimately the committee is not being convened today to discuss Bill C-6, but rather to consider whether or not the committee will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6 at its next meeting, and of course, as indicated in the letter, what witnesses and budget and meeting allocations would be required to complete such a study.

I'm happy to ask one of the signatories to the letter--I don't have the letter in front of me.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're a signatory. Would you kindly move this in the frame of a motion, please?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague in some senses that the government sometimes puts us in the position where either we're for it or against it, and we either accept it and we make no amendments, and then we're all put in a very difficult position.

That being said, part of the committee's work is to study this bill, to listen to witnesses such as you. Sometimes amendments to a particular bill can go through quite quickly if all parties agree that substantive amendments can be made, or not-so-substantive amendments can be made, and that sort of thing.

I want to go back to the appointment of judges. We have heard the government in the past saying that the current judges on the bench were too liberal or liberal-minded, and that we needed to appoint judges that were more conservative-minded. We had the Conservative government questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts, saying they were too lenient and didn't favour their political ideologies. So I can understand why one had reservations about the government solely being responsible for the appointment of judges without the cooperation or the legislative commitment to have both parties, the aboriginal people and the government, coming forward with recommendations. I can certainly understand your apprehension in that.

Can anybody give me an example of where there is only one judge, at the end of a process with no appeal, making the final decision? I find that troublesome, from my perspective, that there would be a sole judge, with no appeal mechanism after that, making the decision. That is why I think we should have adopted what Bill C-6 says...at least three, so there would be various opinions, varied expertise on the bench listening to this particular case.

Would you agree that three as opposed to one would be an improvement in terms of the tribunal process itself?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, there was actually another point from the Muslim Canadian Congress. Ms. Hassan said, “Even for women who believe that it is a religious requirement, they would not practise it as rigidly, and if they were asked to comply with a certain regulation, they would. So it's not an issue.”

Again we have, in a different statement, a comment saying that even if it were.... It is interesting that she says, “Even for women who believe that it is a religious requirement”, because earlier she was saying that requirement is not necessarily there, but she's trying to accommodate that in saying that they would not practise it as rigidly, that they would comply with a certain regulation, and that it's not an issue. It only seems to be an issue with Elections Canada. It does not seem to be an issue with the Muslim community. It does not seem to be an issue for the rest of Canadians. So that's why this matter must be addressed, and addressed as a priority issue.

Chair, it's important that Bill C-6 not languish. It's important that Bill C-6 be given the attention it deserves as a bill that has been passed by MPs in the House. Again, this gets--not “again”, actually; this is the first time I'm mentioning it--to the crux of the matter. What gets to the crux of the matter is that MPs are elected by Canadians, and so it is truly right and correct to say that they are the representatives of the people of their constituency. As MPs representing Canadians, we have brought forward this bill concerning the electoral process and the identification of voters.

It is somewhat disconcerting to realize that if the opposition were really sincere in their intention to move with Bill C-6 in this committee--in which we are outvoted--it could have been done a long time ago, and we in fact could have had this out; we could have had it passed into law, and it would beneficially impact elections.

Instead, what we've had to endure is partisan posturing, partisan motions, partisan politics, in trying to take advantage of a situation in which there truly is no advantage. When we tried to level the playing field and tried to say we were acting both according to the letter of the law, which is important, and in the spirit of the law, and that all parties were acting that way, they rebuffed that. They've taken something that could have been addressed in a very efficacious manner and instead have drawn it out into a long process, a process that I think has been detrimental to addressing these more important issues, such as Bill C-6.

I mentioned it is not just Bill C-6. I do have this concern that we actually have a statutory requirement to review the provisions of Bill C-3 by May 11, 2008, so we're talking about a statutory requirement to move ahead. Instead, we're being stalled as a committee in terms of doing what I call real work. This is real work, a statutory obligation. It is real work. We're being stalled by the opposition, which is moving forward with partisan manoeuvres to take advantage of a situation in which all parties have acted in the same manner and in accordance with the law.

There is other work, of course, in front of the committee. There is this one here, the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. There were forms on November 2, 2007; the commissioner sent the committee draft forms for its approval, if you can imagine. We're talking over three months ago. The commissioner also requested the approval of the committee before posting online the public registry. The committee sent a letter to the commissioner regarding the forms under the code, and the commissioner appeared before the subcommittee.

But this is still an open item of business, Chair. Here we have an officer of Parliament who has asked the committee to do some work. And instead, we've been floundering, with opposition motions and subcommittee reports.

Again, to clarify, really to underline what my good friend and colleague Joe Preston was saying at the last meeting, the steering committee itself is quite biased. I respect your presence there, Mr. Chair. But you know, and committee members know, and I hope Canadians will now know after I make this statement--although they could have read Mr. Preston's testimony--that you do not play an active role in terms of determining the business of the committee. In fact, you can't even vote. So it's a very lopsided, one-sided affair on that committee.

Mr. Chair, I'm just pointing out the fact that future work.... Bill C-6 is future work. I'm pointing out that there is other future work and that the steering committee, where some of this other work comes from, is dominated by the opposition. If they really wanted to get some real work done--the important work of the committee--they could do this, they could accomplish this, at the steering committee. Instead, they're launching these partisan-type attacks and trying to take advantage of the process and procedures of the committee for their partisan advantage. This is not to the advantage of Canadians. This is not to the advantage of Parliament. This is to their own partisan advantage.

We have proposed a change to that subcommittee, Mr. Chair. We feel that we should have a voice, not just a body on the committee who can't participate in determining future business and who cannot vote in terms of future business. We feel that we should have an active participant in the subcommittee process, because the subcommittee plays a key role in determining the future business of the committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Right. So as I was saying, we've been asked by a stakeholder in this process--I would say a fairly significant stakeholder in this process--to move now, and actually “now” for them, when they made that statement, was back in September. Yet the bill, Bill C-6, has been waylaid. It has been shunted to the side by the opposition members. It's time to get back on track to ensure that we in fact proceed with the business that concerns the electoral process, which is very pertinent to Canadians.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I am so glad. It worries me when my fellow MPs are not clear. That's right. He did understand. It did sink in. That's great, so it's in there. It's been logged in his memory bank.

I was talking about the Muslim Canadian Congress, Chair, and what their viewpoint was on this, and that very important statement they made that it is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered. They would be more than willing to lift their veils if that is the requirement. So I was just in the process of underscoring what I consider to be a fairly significant statement by the Muslim Canadian Congress.

They went on, of course, to say:

My question is, how are you going to ensure that the same veiled person is not going to vote a multiple number of times using different identifications? Unless identification can be connected to the person voting, it is useless. So if there isn't legislation in place at the moment for voters to identify themselves visually, there should be, and that's what I'm proposing here.

Again, the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress is very eloquent here in that the president is raising a very valid concern. I think this is the concern that prompted the change in the law in the first place, and that is this whole idea of the identification of the voter. As we know, votes are crucial. We have some MPs who won by a handful of votes. The opposition has some MPs who won by a handful of votes. Every vote counts.

I think, in a sense, Chair, this is something that is taken for granted at times. When an MP wins by 10,000 votes or 20,000 votes, one can see how it can be taken for granted. Oh, it's just a handful of votes; okay, so it's not 12,000, it's 12,000 less a handful. But there are several MPs who won by a handful of votes or to whom a handful of votes would have made a significant difference.

I can certainly speak to that myself. In my riding it was a huge change. It moved from a Liberal MP to a Conservative MP. For your edification--I know you'll be interested in this--in part of the riding it had been 124 years. I'm talking 1882 since the last time a Conservative MP had been elected. When I was elected on election night, it actually unfolded in an interesting way. There are parts of the riding that are very strong in one way and others that are very strong in the other way. So as the results were coming in, it really depended on which parts of the riding were reporting in during the evening. Of course, no one really had visibility on that. All we saw were the overall results showing up on the screen. I started the evening in advance, but then the Liberal candidate took the lead and he held the lead for a good portion of the evening. In fact, some media outlets declared him the winner, so they put the check mark beside his name because he had been ahead for an hour by roughly 1,000 votes.

What's interesting is that at the end of the evening, the remaining polling stations reported in and I started to eat into that lead, much to the delight of those who voted in favour of me, and actually narrowed that gap. Here's where it gets interesting, Chair. At the very end of the evening, and I think mine was one of the last ridings to know definitively who the winner was, I had surged ahead. I won by an avalanche of 200 votes. In my riding 200 votes works out to roughly one vote per ballot box.

Now where does this fit into what I'm talking about today? What I'm talking about today and what the Muslim Canadian Congress brought up was, how are you going to ensure that the same veiled person is not going to vote a multiple number of times using different identifications? We're talking about the integrity of the voting process. I'm saying that certainly I am very sensitive, as I think other MPs would be, especially those who win by a smaller margin, to the integrity of the voting process and this ability to be able to identify voters.

Up until the passage into law regarding identification of voters, it was possible to vote just with your card. You could just say, “Hi, I have this card, and I'm voting”, and you were not obligated to prove that you were who you were. Of course, when you're looking at a 200-vote spread, if things don't go in accordance with the way they are supposed to, this can cause great concern.

I think her concern is valid in that we're talking one vote per ballot box. What if veiled voters went to other boxes to vote and could not be properly identified because of the misunderstanding that now exists in the electoral process? It's a very valid question, because the point I'm trying to make, Chair, is that one vote per ballot box can make the difference. There are other MPs who won by smaller margins than mine, and I would say that their concern would even be more intense regarding this process. So the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress quite rightly said, “So if there isn't legislation in place at the moment for voters to identify themselves visually, there should be...”.

She said this back in September, yet here we are, we're sitting here in February, and basically the bill is stalled. Bill C-6, our solution to this problem, is stalled here in the committee, when in fact I think it could have been dealt with in a very efficacious manner. All we need is a bit of cooperation--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The point I'm trying to make is that if we opened up all the books of all the parties, we could have dispensed with this study of election financing. I think that would have been to Ms. Redman's goal. She wants to have a study of election financing, so let's do it and let's get it over with quickly; and by doing so, let's open up all the books, because as soon as we open all the books of every party, Canadians will see there's nothing there. That would take probably less than one meeting. We could then move on with other important business.

So I do want to answer the question directly that was asked of me. I am indeed saying that the opposition has delayed committee business—and I'm talking about committee business being Bill C-6 and the study of other legislation—with this sort of partisan initiative to look at the books of only one party. It just makes no sense.

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

On a point of order, does that have something to do with Bill C-6?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, you asked for a point of clarification, and what I'm trying to clarify is the fact that I'm saying yes, the opposition MPs delayed the study of Bill C-6, and the reason they did it was for the partisan purposes of launching a study on election financing that actually could have been implemented and completed in a very effective and efficient manner, provided they had accepted our friendly amendment to open all books of all parties. My point was that when we open all the books of all the parties, Canadians will see that all parties have acted in the same manner, that they've done exactly the same thing, and that it is legal.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Oh yes, that's right. Thank you.

To address that, what I'm saying is that the opposition has delayed the study of Bill C-6 and other important legislation. In fact, just to give some weight to what I'm saying, when I look at the outstanding business of the committee, there was a first report of the steering committee, there was a motion, then there was a report from the steering committee, then there was a second report from the steering committee, there was all the debate that ensued from that report, and there was a real obstinacy, to not accepting amendments, to not entertaining all parties opening their books. I'm saying their obstinacy in proceeding with this issue of election financing actually delayed the study of Bill C-6.

So I would have to say yes, the opposition MPs delayed the study of Bill C-6 by trying to force an election financing study that actually we were quite happy to accommodate if we'd open all the books of all the parties. Our position on that is that when all the books are open, everybody, Canadians included, will see that all parties have acted in the same manner, in a legal manner, and in accordance with election financing laws, and that there is no study to be done. That's the key thing. That's why by proceeding that way we would not have actually spent a lot of time doing a study, because the matter would have been rectified rather quickly.

But there's an obstinacy on behalf of the opposition to accept the suggestion—I call it the friendly amendment—to open all books. There's nothing to hide here. We're not criticizing the opposition for their election financing. I'm clarifying why they're—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

So I'm saying, Chair, that with the forthcoming byelections in fairly important ridings—and I would argue actually that some of these byelections will take place in communities where there is a significant presence of Muslim women—nothing has really changed since the last byelections. I would imagine that the concerns I commented on earlier in this meeting would pertain today. I would just have to assume that the same concerns exist. I have certainly not heard anything contrary to that.

To me, that means Bill C-6 needs to be treated in a priority fashion and the committee needs to get back on track. The committee needs to ensure that it remains focused on legislation that has such a dramatic impact on our electoral process.

I have a few other things, because they are interesting here. We had Ms. Farzana Hassan. She is the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress and she made some rather pertinent comments as well. She said,

The Muslim Canadian Congress is opposed to the burka or the niqab or the complete veiling of women in public spaces. We are suggesting that the burka be banned, especially in the electoral process in which openness and freedom need to be guaranteed. We need to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. It is imperative that whoever is physically present in the electoral process should be able to identify themselves. It is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered completely. They would be more than willing to lift their veils if that is the requirement.

So, Chair, we come back to this point of stakeholders and who this affects the most. What we're hearing here is the Muslim community speaking out. There are important points here where they feel they have been targeted somewhat unfairly, because they never asked for this issue of veiled voting. They never asked for this accommodation, and yet it was somewhat given to them and then it was misunderstood. They feel that the misunderstanding is not in their best interests.

We have some very direct comments here that indicate it is not a requirement. At least this is what the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress says: “It is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered completely. They would be more than willing to lift their veils if that is the requirement.”

What I hear there is an appeal to the committee to get on with Bill C-6. Let's get this bill moving. Let's get it through committee.

We'll have to call witnesses, Chair. We'll have to go through the clause-by-clause analysis. It may not take long, because I think we're fairly conversant with Bill C-6.

Again, it surprises me that the opposition has waylaid the committee in that way, because I think when we finally sink our teeth into Bill C-6 and actually move to accomplish our work, we will do so in a very effective and efficient manner. I have no doubt of that.

Actually, to have continually shuffled Bill C-6 off--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

What I am talking about, Chair, is the work of the committee. The motion I put forward is the work of the committee and how we were getting off base on the work of the committee. That's why I'm bringing it back into moving forward with Bill C-6.

What I'm tying it to is a comment that the opposition is willing to move forward with Bill C-6. I'm saying I don't have a lot of confidence in their intentions and I'm giving an example. This is how it's tying in, because they're saying we should bring this to a vote and we'll get right to it. I'm saying I don't have a lot of confidence because that's not what I have seen.

Instead, what I'm saying is--and this is where it ties in very nicely--we were willing to move without delay on Madam Redman's motion provided the opposition would agree to open their books so we're looking at all parties at the same time when it comes to election financing. As Mr. Lukiwski pointed out, we have all followed the same practices.

Rather than forcing a delay in the business of the committee, if we want to deal with this quickly, let's find some common ground. Let's find some unanimity among the different parties. If this is really a priority issue for the opposition, let's all open our books, let's conduct the study they feel is necessary to conduct for all parties and let's get on with it, do it quickly, get it out of the way, so we can get back to legislation like Bill C-6. This is where I'm tying back in.

That's not what we saw. Instead we saw an intransigence on the part of the opposition MPs in that they simply would not budge from their motion. They will not entertain amendments. They will not entertain friendly amendments. These are friendly amendments. To open all books is a friendly amendment if I ever saw one. Yet I feel, Chair, they turned hostile to that friendly amendment. A hand was offered in friendship, and they bit the hand. It does make one hesitate to offer an olive branch a second time, but I think we would be willing to do so.

I'm making this point again. We need to move ahead with committee business. This is what I am proposing in this motion I have put forward. I think we probably could have accomplished both the study and moving ahead with the legislation if only we could have found some unanimity among the parties instead of this blockheadedness regarding being able to amend their motion so we could look at all parties' books. I think as soon as we open all the books we'll see there is no issue here. The actual time we “would have spent”--it's conditional, “would have spent”--conducting this study would not have been needed.

I did diverge a little to explain the importance of moving ahead with committee business and why I think we could have accomplished both, but let me focus on Bill C-6.

I was talking about different stakeholders, the people who have a valid concern with Elections Canada's interpretation, which has resulted in a solution, Bill C-6, and why we need to move on this, because there are many stakeholders. Many groups have a role to play. They are influenced and affected negatively, I would argue, by the issue, particularly if it remains unaddressed.

Here's something interesting. This was reported in the Montreal Gazette in October 2007. It says: “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.”

In a sense, I think it shows that there is a widespread understanding, or disagreement, or unhappiness with the ruling of Elections Canada, which in fact turns the eyes of Canadians back to Parliament, turns them back to the MPs.

They quite rightly said, “Listen, you just passed a law. It's not been interpreted well, we don't agree with this interpretation, and yet apparently it's in our favour. What are you going to do about it as parliamentarians?”

Now, as parliamentarians, particularly as the government, we said that we would move forward with Bill C-6. So we worked with opposition parties to do that. We tabled Bill C-6 in the House. It went through first and second reading. So there was debate on this. Different parties commented and had thoughtful comments to make.

They took part in the process in the House to improve the bill. However, we know that an important stage in the life of a bill is its study in committee. Suddenly, all the work stops and Bill C-6 stays there.

It's not front and centre right now. I'm trying to move it front and centre, but it is not front centre right now. This is a matter of concern, because we may have a general election coming up. We definitely will have byelections coming up. So the same concerns that were enunciated last summer during the previous byelections would logically apply to the byelections coming up, because nothing has changed. Bill C-6 has not been passed into law. It hasn't even made it through this committee yet. So fundamentally, there has been no change to the situation that existed last summer. The very concerns that I heard from MPs and from the Liberal opposition party--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's good. Thank you, Chair.

I was in the process of showing the wide-based support there is for proceeding with Bill C-6. The bill addresses an important matter, and there was great concern, particularly at the time, regarding this bill and the interpretation by Elections Canada of the law that had been passed and that resulted in Bill C-6.

I'll move on, Chair, and make reference to Montreal's The Gazette newspaper, where MP Marlene Jennings also supported, I think, the concern that had been expressed when she said, “I think that people showing their faces for identification purposes to vote is fine.” That was in The Gazette of October 24. Again, it shows that wide-based concern.

I've given quotes from all parties here, from all MPs, from leaders and from House leaders, showing that there was concern and that there is still concern, I would have to argue, because it hasn't been rectified yet. The bill is in front of the committee, and this situation has not been rectified.

I think the government has made an excellent effort to address this situation in a direct manner by proposing legislation that would address these widespread concerns, yet this bill is stalled in front of our committee. It's stalled in front of our committee because there are motions moving us away--and I'm going to say that these motions moving us away are from the honourable members of the opposition--from this essential work of the committee. And given what I've read, it is surprising: it is surprising to me, to my colleagues, and to Canadians.

Now, there are more people who have a role in this, Chair.

It isn't just the members who are concerned about the deficiencies of the act or its interpretation; the various communities everywhere, especially the Muslim community, are as well.

They participated. We had some of them come in front of the committee as witnesses so that we in fact could understand.

I think from their point of view, veiled voting primarily impacts the Muslim community--not exclusively so, but primarily so. I think it was wise and prudent of the committee to have witnesses come from the Muslim community so that we could have a much better understanding of their points of view on this, and whether they were concerned about what was happening. Were they for Elections Canada's interpretation or against it?

These are the kinds of things you don't necessarily want to just read about in the paper. As a committee, as part of our work, we invite witnesses here because it allows us to question them and have fruitful discussions to better understand their positions. So I actually think it was a very wise move on behalf of the committee to do so. We had a variety of different witnesses come in front of the committee. We also had a variety of people comment outside the committee, as people are free to do, and to give their opinion. Particularly when it comes to the Muslim community, it can have consequences ethnically or perhaps religiously, and we wanted to understand that better.

One witness who I found very interesting was Mrs. Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. One of the points she made was that there was a perception that this had in fact been framed as a Muslim issue, and she found that to be unfortunate. There was a concern expressed that people would simply focus this in to a very narrow focus group and say it just concerned one group of people.

This is one of the things she said:

From what I understand, Monsieur Mayrand was being well- intentioned and thoughtful about veiled Muslim women. Sadly, this focus has exacerbated the anti-Muslim sentiment and has made this into another bad example of how Muslims are seeking accommodation when, in fact the confusion is the result of unclear directions and the act and its options.

These are interesting comments, particularly from the Muslim community, about this. She actually went on to say:

This issue should be dealt with as a Canadian issue of encouraging voting, and as security versus human rights issues. The rationale for changes becomes understandable if these concerns are addressed for all Canadians. Do not, please, make this an issue for Muslims only, as Muslim women are willing to show their faces. They accept the importance of voting.

This is an important quote coming from the executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. It would seem there is a perception that the ruling was made to accommodate Muslim women and perhaps their cultural practices, but here we have the executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women actually stating publicly on the record that Muslim women are willing to show their faces, and they accept the importance of voting.

This actually would run contrary to the widespread public perception of the issue at the time. She made an important clarification, and I don't think that it was necessarily lost on the committee. As I said, it was on the record. Committee members were paying close attention when those comments were made, and it has influenced the importance of Bill C-6 in an important manner. It shines light on the need to clarify a way forward and the need to fix this problem, and to fix it in a way that all Canadians can see and that all Canadians can understand, as a hole that has been plugged or an issue that is no longer of concern. This is why Bill C-6 came forward from the House, and this is why it is in front of the committee, but it just seems to lack the support of the opposition in terms of moving it forward.

Mr. Proulx had mentioned that the opposition certainly supports moving immediately to Bill C-6, but I would say I think it is fair to be skeptical, because their actions have said otherwise. Their actions to date have included sidetracking the committee and railroading the committee, simply by force of their numbers. There doesn't seem to be much logical argument to support their position. It just seems to be a numbers game. In other words, there are more opposition members. This is a good point to make. Those of us sitting here know this, but Canadians don't necessarily know this. It's good to remind them that in these types of committees the opposition MPs greatly outnumber the government MPs, and so sometimes debate--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

So I'm going to quote Mr. Godin directly:

We want this to be clear and not misinterpreted. It will be clear: people who want to vote will show their faces. Why not say it like that? That will be much better.

I think Monsieur Godin's words were very well spoken. He feels that it will go a lot better....

That's why I'm surprised that there's been delay from the opposition MPs in coming around to actually discussing Bill C-6. It's a bill that's been referred to the committee for discussion, and yet it's work we have not gotten to, as a result of motions from opposition party members to derail the important work of the committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

So I was saying that the members in the House and those around this table are concerned about declining voter turn-out in the electoral process. We'd like to increase turn-out levels because the figures are constantly falling. We're looking for the reasons for that because we would like to provide solutions.

Mr. Van Loan's comment was really relevant. He said that, if the situation remained unresolved, poorly understood, that would undermine public confidence in the electoral process. That's one of the concerns of all members. We've previously spoken about that.

Mr. Van Loan also told the Globe and Mail that we had seen the consequences of that decision in the byelections that were held in Quebec in September. He also said before a committee that, when anyone starts ridiculing the established electoral rules, people begin losing confidence in their electoral system, and he didn't believe that we parliamentarians could let that be done without reacting.

That's why Bill C-6 is really of capital importance. There were some stupid things—

Stupid things were done during the election. People showed up with Darth Vader helmets to take advantage of what people perceived as a loophole or a poor interpretation of the electoral law. They made a mockery of the electoral system. In doing so, they have eroded the confidence of people who didn't do that, who had the good sense to not mock the system in that way, because they ask what's happening with the electoral system if it allows that to even occur. As I mentioned, this is a matter of concern for everybody in this room and everybody in Parliament, which is why we came up with Bill C-6.

That's why we decided to have official meetings here in committee, where the business on the agenda was to study Bill C-6 and to implement a solution as quickly as possible to improve the situation because that situation was utterly unacceptable. As I said, why aren't we on the right track? That's why I'm proud to introduce a motion to ensure that we are on the right track.

I quoted a number of remarks by Mr. Van Loan and my friend Mr. Guimond.

As regards the Liberal Party, I'd like to talk about the opinion of the leader of the official opposition, Stéphane Dion, on veiled voters. This comes from a September Canadian Press article stating that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is of the same view and that, in his opinion, it must be possible to identify people who are going to vote. The article states that Mr. Dion said in Vancouver that Elections Canada should assign female staff to the polling stations to identify women under their veils, something a man would not have a right to do.

Mr. Dion also stated that his party did not agree with Elections Canada, which he asked to reverse its decision. He added that, ultimately, a person must be able to be identified at the time of voting.

We see that the concerns are all well expressed and well stated everywhere.

One National Post article states that the Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, whose party is having trouble finding support in the province, is also opposed to this measure. The Liberal leader says he believes that citizens are required to reveal their identity when they vote in an election. That's why he would like Elections Canada to reverse its decision and to require women to show their faces in order to prove their identity.

The words used to discuss the situation are strong and direct. I've made a few references to Mr. Mayrand's letter stating that Mr. Dion's remarks were not—

They weren't convincing enough to have him change his decision regarding veiled voting.

Stéphane Dion also went on to say that he had a real concern with the byelections. There were byelections at that time, so it wasn't just an esoteric argument, which we had time to consider. There were some very real byelections approaching in which people voted.

The integrity of the electoral process is paramount. If we want Canadians to participate in the electoral process, then we need to ensure that they in fact have a high level of confidence that the electoral process is sound. I would say that of all the laws we pass, some of the most important are those that concern electoral reform, because it affects each one of us, yes, personally.

But I don't think any of us here is vain enough to think we will be MPs for eternity. It also affects the future of our government. MPs come and MPs go. Even for MPs who have served for extremely long terms there comes a point when they go, and a new election determines who will replace them as MPs. If Canadians find fault with the system, then they aren't so interested in participating. Their skepticism increases--it does not decrease--particularly when they see a flagrant mockery of a misapplication of the law.

That's where Bill C-6 is important, because it directly addresses this concern, and it's a concern that was identified by many people.

Just to go on, in La Presse,

here's what it said: Mr. Dion also said he hoped that an amendment would be passed to have all voters vote with their faces uncovered in the next Canadian election. “There has to be an amendment,” he said. “However, that will come in time. Byelections are being held now. We want them to be held in a peaceful atmosphere. We disagree with Elections Canada's decision, but we respect it.”

He quite rightly put his finger on the point that this needed to change not just for the byelections but for the long term. He was recommending an amendment at that time simply to find an immediate solution because of the impending byelections.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I was just saying that with Bill C-6 in particular, it's obvious that the problems arose last summer when Parliament passed a bill regarding elections and the way in which they were going to be conducted. This bill was not interpreted to the liking of Parliament or members' understanding of the bill they had just passed, and they felt it was perhaps an overstepping by Elections Canada. They were quite clear on that.

I was just acknowledging that as chair, you have tried to seek clarification from Elections Canada. I was commenting that Elections Canada had written you back. Monsieur Mayrand had written back acknowledging the receipt of your letter in which you had informed him of the unanimous motion of the committee—so it was unanimous—calling upon Elections Canada to reverse its decision to allow veiled voting, which was the way he put it.

So there was unanimous consent in the committee to address the issue directly with Monsieur Mayrand, through you, Chair, in a formal manner, that is, through a letter, a letter that was a response, and to which Monsieur Mayrand responded. Once the bill made it through Parliament and was passed into law, we could say it had the support of the House; that's a fair comment to make. And when it was discussed by this committee at that time—and it had the unanimous consent of the committee—I think it's fair to say this was a concern to all parties in the House and to all parliamentarians, just from the point of view of unanimity.

But when he wrote back, Monsieur Mayrand said, “As I indicated in my press conference yesterday”—and he attached the transcript—“The Canada Elections Act provides several ways of voting that do not require the visual comparison of an elector with a photograph, and consequently the choice to unveil is that of the elector. This result flows not from a decision on my part, but from the act, as recently adopted by Parliament“.

Of course, there's great debate on that point. There certainly was great debate at that time on that point. I think the debate now has shown itself in the form of Bill C-6, which addresses this.

Now, what he did go on to say towards the end of his letter was that, “I would be pleased to appear [before] the Committee at your convenience to further discuss the requirements of the Act in this regard and the reasons why I believe an adaptation would not be justified at this time”.

So you had interpreted the letter to be a no to this unanimous motion passed by the committee. Attempts were then made to have Monsieur Mayrand appear before the committee.

Again, underlining the criticality of the issue, there are many influential MPs—I would point out Monsieur Guimond in particular—who basically expressed their opinions on this matter.

For example, my friend from the Bloc, Mr. Guimond, said:

I repeat that the Bloc supports the principle of the bill because it believes that all voters, men and women, must be equal before the law.

It's Mr. Guimond who said that, and I congratulate him on those words. He truly speaks on behalf of his party, the Bloc Québécois. He said this was really a critical problem that concerned not only the members and parties, but also voters across Canada. That's a quotation from Hansard.

But there are other MPs who spoke up at the same time—again, as I said, well-known MPs who have important things to add.

For example, Peter Van Loan, another minister, said that during the recent byelections held in Quebec, the government clearly expressed its disagreement with Elections Canada's decision to let people vote with their faces veiled. He said that in October 2007. His remarks were clear.

He also said he thought it was necessary to ensure that the population continues to have confidence in the electoral process. That's an important remark because we're talking about the public's trust in the electoral process. Members are afraid there is a decline in public trust in the electoral process.

That's why we're trying to improve the situation. We've heard from witnesses and we've engaged in debates to identify the reasons why voter turnout at elections is lower. The numbers—