Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 10th, 2007

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would like to thank my honourable colleague and friend, Mr. Guimond, for putting forward a motion on this important issue.

The word “reconsider” is not forceful enough.

For the anglophones among us, that means reconsider. We want him to reverse his decision. I think that's a stronger and more appropriate word. I expect that would be a friendly amendment.

Mr. Chair, for the purposes of the discussion, the word “reconsider” has been replaced with “reverse”.

I think the good thing about this motion is that it does not preclude us from doing some deeper work on this matter later this week. The matter can still be discussed. I think the chair should go to the Chief Electoral Officer to ascertain if this motion will have the effect of changing the Chief Electoral Officer's position on veiled voting. And if it does, then the matter is resolved.

However, if it does not cause him to reverse his position, then he does need to come before this committee, as do other witnesses, to explain his position and defend himself for having made a decision that this committee has indicated it thinks is wrong.

Mr. Chair, I would move in a moment, after we've done with this motion, that we authorize you to call him as a witness to explain his decision and defend his decision against questioning if he refuses to succumb to the demands Mr. Guimond has placed in his motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Preston, and then Monsieur Guimond.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Although I love the direction we're taking, I don't understand why we don't call Mr. Mayrand here to ask him that, instead of sending him a letter to that effect.

This committee had Mr. Mayrand come during the review of Bill C-31. We thought that what we were trying to say was very clearly understood then. I think he very clearly said at a news conference today the opposite of what we're going to try to ask him to do in another letter. I'd rather ask him to his face than in writing.

I suggest that we have Mr. Mayrand here at the earliest convenience. I'll ask him that question. I don't think it will take long to get the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's see how the vote goes on the motion, because maybe we can get the letter out. It does make sense to me. It sounds like an efficient use of time.

Monsieur Guimond, it's your motion, and you're the last speaker.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I'm afraid we're going to get sidetracked here. I think Mr. Poilievre's amendment is quite acceptable. The committee must make it very clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that he needs to reverse his decision. My colleague Mr. Poilievre has said that the committee needs to think about calling him here to testify should he refuse to reverse his decision. We have only 25 minutes remaining. Immediately following the meeting, you, Mr. Chairman, and the clerk could draft this letter and forward it without delay to Mr. Mayrand. Then we'll see how he reacts to our request. I don't think we need to do anything further at this point in time. The committee will decide its next move based on his response.

My colleague Preston is suggesting that we call him before the committee and that's a good idea. However, all of the parties agree that his decision makes no sense. This motion must confirm our position, because by-elections are in the offing. Should he refuse to reconsider his position, we will then convene once again by unanimous consent. We don't need to have four people agree to call in four members of the committee. We can talk about this again tomorrow morning and convene another meeting at the earliest opportunity. During this morning's press conference, the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned that if he were to receive a request of this nature, he might be open to reconsidering his position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, is there any final comment that's going to alter this, or is it time for the question?

Monsieur Godin, are you voting for the question? Is that what you're asking for?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

The motion reads as follows:

That members of the committee call upon Elections Canada to reverse its decision to allow veiled individuals to vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, we're going to pose the question, but I'd like to read the motion one final time so all members are clear, with the friendly amendment of “reverse” versus “review”.

Please.

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

It concerns voting practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There is one final question for clarification by the chair: This will go in a letter so we have a record of it, but I'm asking permission to phone the Chief Electoral Officer, to read the letter to him over the phone and ask him to respond as quickly as possible.

Now, what does “as quickly as possible” mean?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Can we fax the letter once you've talked to him or before you talk to him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Of course. Okay, that's fair. He probably knows about it already, by the way.

Monsieur Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All right, I would just like to clarify that Mr. Preston's motion still stands and that we are going to continue with a study this week on that. So could your office be in contact with us about when the other witnesses are going to be coming? We will still be having witnesses from Elections Canada, including the Chief Electoral Officer.

Just for clarity's sake--I think there's some confusion among the opposition--there was nothing in Mr. Guimond's motion that would preclude Mr. Preston's motion from going ahead. It's still there. It's been passed and adopted. Unless, that is, the opposition wants to change its mind and prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from being held accountable before this committee, that process will still go ahead. We look forward to finding out when those meetings will occur.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

As committee members know, we normally ask the committee members to provide witnesses to us versus our chasing committee members around, so let's get those lists of witnesses and reports you want.

I'm going to go with Monsieur Proulx first and then Monsieur Godin.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I presume that in this case, contrary to the previous one, for which you needed advice from the Conservative Party, we are to understand, sir--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, would you mind retracting that?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, sir. We understand that if Mr. Mayrand tells you that he will be changing his decision, we don't need witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, that was not necessary, because it was clear to me.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Super. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Godin.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we put this motion to Mr. Mayrand and he reverses his decision, I do not see why we would need a public hearing. For what purpose? We wanted to study this matter until Friday so as to convince the Chief Electoral Officer to change his mind. If he refuses to do so, then I suggest we call him before the committee. However, if he agrees to our request, then there is no need to have a meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a motion on the floor that if the CEO refuses to change or indicates to me that he has no intention of changing his current stand or interpretation, he will be called before this committee at the earliest convenience. Is that the motion?

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know if my words were misinterpreted earlier, because I was speaking allegorically, but I did say that it was vitally important that we send out this letter. Based on the response received, you may contact us and we can quickly meet once more to draw up a list of witnesses. Let's not jump the gun. I think more frequent visits to the Optimist Clubs in your ridings is in order. I'm an optimist by nature. There is no need to say that we will call him before the committee if he refuses to reverse his decision, because that is implicit in my motion. If a meeting is necessary, we will hear from seven or eight witnesses. That's beside the point.

Let's start by sending him a letter and based on his response, you can contact us tomorrow morning and we can then decide on a course of action. The important thing here is to get a letter to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll have Madam Redman first, and then Monsieur Poilievre, and then Monsieur Godin.

That makes sense to me, by the way, Monsieur Guimond.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had originally sought some kind of clarification from Mr. Preston, because I think many of us around this table were here when we passed that new legislation, and I guess the interpretation that was made was not one any of us anticipated. And while I have not consulted widely, I have certainly read media reports from people in my own riding who are saying that nobody who wears a burka or a veil objects to exposing her face to a female.

So it seems to me there's not a great body of people feeling that it would be egregious to interpret it the way this committee--indeed I would say almost to a person--felt, that if you are going to give photo ID you have to be able to do that visual photo ID. I don't anticipate this being a long-drawn-out affair.

It seemed to me from everything I read, while I wasn't at the press conference, that the Chief Electoral Officer truly was seeking clarification. I would think that your letter will more than appropriately do that, so I'm very much in agreement with what's before us.