Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to meet with you this morning to deal with the question of voter identification and the matter of veiled women who vote.
As you know, since last June the Canada Elections Act offers three options to electors to identify themselves at the polls. These are set out in section 143 of the act.
First, electors can choose to produce one piece of government-issued identification showing three elements: photo, name, and residential address. Only certain pieces of identification issued by provincial or local authorities meet all those requirements, mainly the driver's license.
As I indicated earlier this week, for electors choosing this method the deputy returning officer must, of course, be able to compare their photo with their face. In that case, an elector whose face is covered must remove the covering.
For electors without a piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and residential address, a second option is to produce two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Both pieces must then contain the elector's name and one of them must also contain his or her residential address. The act does not require that these pieces of identification contain their photo. In this situation, therefore, the person's face is not compared with a photograph.
Nowadays, especially in urban areas, one cannot assume that election officers know the electors who present themselves at the polls. Visual identification is therefore not required.
Third, Parliament has provided that electors without any piece of identification may take an oath and be vouched for by another registered voter who has the required piece of identification. Here again there's no visual comparison required.
Thus, the act provides several ways of voting that do not require the visual identification of electors. The choice of method is up to the individual.
In this regard, allow me to cite the words of the minister who was responsible for the Canada Elections Act in his speech at the second reading of Bill C-31. The minister then said:
The voter ID process in our bill was carefully crafted by the standing committee to provide a balance appropriate to our Canadian system and consistent with our values. The balance is struck between protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring that no one is disentitled to vote by reason of lack of identification.
This balance could not have been attained if all electors had been required to identify themselves with photo identification. The Act therefore provided for other means of identification that do not require visual recognition. The choice is up to the elector.
You will recall that when this matter was debated, mention was made of the implications of the new identification process for different population groups, whether young people, Aboriginals, seniors, seasonal workers or the homeless, all of whom are less likely to have photo identification.
Finally, apart from these three options, electors can also vote by mail. By definition, this special procedure precludes visual contact between electors and election staff. As I noted earlier this week, more than 80,000 electors voted by mail in the 2006 general election. I would point out that the federal voter identification regime has become the most restrictive regime in Canada. To my knowledge, no provincial legislation requires visual voter recognition.
Some people, recognizing that the Act does not oblige electors to uncover their faces to vote, have suggested that I exercise the power that is given to me during election periods to modify or adapt the Act. As I have indicated, this authority is exceptional and must be exercised with caution and circumspection, only for a temporary period of time and only when it is necessary by reason of mistakes, emergency or unusual or unforeseen circumstances. This authority is intended to facilitate the voting process, not to restrict electors' fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider the extent of the adaptation power of the Chief Electoral Officer in the 1993 Haig Decision, in the context of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. As some may remember, there had been two referendum processes to vote on the Accord: one for all of Canada except Quebec, and one applicable to Quebec only, for which the Quebec referendum legislation applied. Mr. Haig had recently moved from Ontario to Quebec and could not vote in Quebec because he had not resided in that province for at least six months, as required by the statute. He was asking the federal Chief Electoral Officer to adapt the federal statute to allow him to vote in Ontario, as if he still lived there. This is what the Court said about the adaptation power:
Though the Chief Electoral Officer is given a discretionary power to adapt the legislation, this power does not extend to authorize a fundamental departure from the scheme of the Referendum Act [...]. In exercising his discretion, he must remain within the parameters of the legislative scheme.
Similarly, in the current situation, the possibility for electors to vote without removing their face coverings is the clear and unambiguous consequence of the legislative scheme set out in section 143 of the Act.
This does not preclude the possibility to invoke my adaptation power if exceptional circumstances arose. However, at this time, I do not consider that there is a reason for me to exercise my authority to adapt the Act.
I also wish to remind you that last Monday, I asked election officials to invite anyone whose face is concealed to uncover it in a manner that is respectful of their beliefs. If they decline to do so, voters must take an oath as to their qualification as an elector in order to be eligible to vote. However, I have not amended the Act to require them to uncover their face. Again, the choice continues to be up to the individual.
At this time, I remain confident that next Monday's election will proceed in a smooth and orderly fashion in the three ridings of Outremont, Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Thank you.