Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 13th, 2007

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to underline that, because, Chair, I asked the Chief Electoral Officer, when we were looking at this bill, which I think was ill-conceived, how many cases of voter fraud we've had in the last number of elections. He didn't identify it as a problem.

In fact, I would submit there is more of a problem in the integrity of candidates who run for one party and switch to the other. That's the real concern I have, and I think Canadians have, when they wake up in the morning.

I want to clear the air on another issue on the bill. There has been some suggestion that this issue has somehow been tied to the issue of election financing. I want to know whether you can comment on that. Has there been any connection for you with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order.

Mr. Dewar, I was very clear in my instructions that we keep this comment around the veil issue. I have given you a lot of leeway to debate your case again, which we all heard in Parliament last year. We're already down to less than a minute, so I'm going to move on. Thank you.

We're going to go to our second round, colleagues. We have a number of witnesses coming in at eleven, so we have a limited time. We're going to go to five-minute rounds.

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Monsieur Mayrand and company.

I think it's very appropriate that we're having this conversation, and it's one of the reasons I supported the motion to ask you to come before us. I want to point out, for people who are watching this on television, that we have indeed had a change in the legislation. The change in the legislation, from my perspective as a member of this committee, was very much to make sure there was clarity in voting and fairness to all electors in being able to vote.

You've done a very succinct job of outlining the three ways in which any elector can identify themselves. One is the photo ID.

I would underscore that I don't think we anticipated this issue. But you've been very clear that you not only made this kind of intervention to the Senate committee when they listened to this, but indeed had contacted the clerk of this committee, as well as the Privy Council.

My first question—and I'd like to split my time with Mr. McGuinty, so I'll try to be quick: is it unusual to have no response from PCO, given that this correspondence was done at the beginning of August?

One of the reasons we're dealing with this issue right now is that, despite the fact that the procedure and House affairs committee was reconvened for an entirely different matter, the government members felt this was of such an urgent nature, because the by-elections were this coming Monday, that it had to be dealt with forthwith.

I've seen many representatives of PCO in the room while we've been having these committee meetings, so it certainly is a topic of interest to them now.

I'm wondering, is it unusual to have heard nothing from PCO when you gave this interpretation of the law?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, I invited the committee, the parties, and the government to provide me with any advice or input on this matter. Unfortunately, for I imagine a whole range of reasons, I did not get any comments.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would give the rest of my time to Mr. McGuinty, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Certainly.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How is my time, Mr. Chair? Three minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Two and a half.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Monsieur Mayrand, I'd just like to go the heart of the comments made recently by the Prime Minister in Sydney.

I'm going to quote him. He said that visual identification of voters is the purpose of this law. Then he said that it concerned him “because the role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws; it's to put into place the laws that Parliament has passed”. Those are two direct quotes.

It's interesting, because, to many Canadians, Mr. Harper came to town as the new prime minister promising to break up judges, boards, agencies, and commissions that didn't abide by the will of Parliament. Here we have a succinct brief that clearly indicates—not at all in line with Mr. Lukiwski's comments about this being a literal interpretation—that you have made an interpretation within the four corners of the statute under which you operate. And now we have a prime minister who is publicly chiding you—and, I would suggest, possibly even manufacturing a crisis—because he's not happy about the fact that you're not interpreting the law differently.

First he says that we shouldn't have boards, agencies, and commissions that are simply blue sky and flying by the seat of their pants, or making new laws against the wishes of Parliament. You come and tell us that you in fact are bound by the will of Parliament. You've been perfectly clear as an officer of Parliament here in this testimony.

How did you react when you heard the Prime Minister's comments? First of all, he doesn't understand the act. And, secondly, he's telling you that he doesn't agree with your own interpretation, because it doesn't suit his own purposes.

What are Canadians to make of this?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not in a position to comment on the comments of the Prime Minister. I can only reiterate that the act does not require visual identification. That is the state of the law.

One of the conundrums I have here is that I'm being asked to change the law, which was just adopted by Parliament and I think was debated at length. That's my conundrum. I'm being asked to change the law and to force electors to choose between two fundamental rights.

I don't think it's up to an agent of Parliament to do that kind of adjustment to a piece of legislation—and that's for respect for Parliament.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can anything change by Monday, Mr. Mayrand?

The PCO received a brief from you some five or six weeks ago. The PCO is the department of the Prime Minister. They have been notified in writing that this issue is outstanding. Silence is acquiescence, I would argue. Silence is acquiescence. They knew about it. The Prime Minister knew about it. This caucus knew about it. The government knew about it. He called the by-election dates. Clearly, the Prime Minister and his staff have known about this for weeks.

Why is it that in off-the-cuff remarks—which are clearly unfounded and wrong—the Prime Minister attacks you and your organization during a photo op with the Prime Minister of Australia?

What are Canadians to make of this?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm sorry, I don't have any comments on this matter. I think it would be better put to the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, thank you.

That round is over.

We're going to go for five minutes to Mr. Poilievre.

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

Mr. Chairman, our Liberal colleagues are now trying to say that they disagree, that your interpretation is incorrect. Three days ago, they endorsed a letter from another committee that argued your interpretation was incorrect. This committee wrote to you to ask you to change your position on the issue of veiled voters. Earlier, you said that you wanted Parliament to instruct you as to how to proceed. We have done so. We are elected officials. Why not comply with the decision unanimously agreed to by all members of this committee?

[Marc Mayrand]

There is a fundamental issue at stake here. As I said earlier this week, the rule of law continues to apply in Canada. Until such time as the act is amended in accordance with the usual parliamentary rules, I cannot take it upon myself to amend the legislation. I have yet to see a legal opinion of some kind that would suggest a different interpretation of the act.

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

However, you indicated that you would like to be instructed by elected representatives as to how to proceed. We have done so in a very clearly drafted letter. You have the authority to adapt the act. Why then not exercise that authority? By law, you have that authority and you can exercise it at any time. We're telling you that now is the best time to exercise this power and you're ignoring our wishes. Why?

[Marc Mayrand]

I have carefully weighed all of the suggestions that have been made to me thus far. The authority to adapt the legislation should only be exercised under exceptional circumstances. I have the power to amend legislation, even though it may have been adopted a certain way by Parliament. However, if you read subsection 17(1) of the act, you will note that this power must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. You will also note that generally speaking, pursuant to subsection 17(1), any adaptation measures that may be taken should be aimed at facilitating the voting process.

In this particular instance, I'm being asked to restrict or compel electors to choose between two fundamental rights granted to them by our Constitution. In my opinion, it is not up to an officer of Parliament to make this choice. I urge Parliament to review the provisions of the act without delay, to examine the legislation after hearing from members of the public and from stakeholders and from making those amendments it deems appropriate.

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

You warned the Liberal Senate that this problem might exist in the law. The Liberal Senate did absolutely nothing to change the law.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I see there's some protest over there from the Liberals, who are now embarrassed by that fact.

Our interpretation has remained the same from the beginning. Our interpretation on the government side is that you have the power to force people to show their faces under the existing law. So your warnings do not have any importance to us, because we disagree with your interpretation.

You have said that you could prevent somebody from voting who wore a hockey mask, or any other form of face covering. So you have that power right now; you've conceded that you have that power. You've been instructed to use that power by a group of democratically elected members on this committee. Why don't you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Just a short answer, please, because we're out of time.

[Marc Mayrand]

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will point out a recent decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal, where in one case the court found that the requirements for photo identity on drivers' licences infringed on the constitutional rights of citizens. Therefore, the court ordered the government to establish a new system of identification that would balance the right of the state as well as the rights of individuals who, for religious beliefs, would not have their photographs taken.

I must say this is also a matter that I need to consider when I'm being asked to adapt the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Next on our list—again for a five-minute round—is Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayrand, in response to a question from Mr. Poilievre about your interpretation of subsection 17(1), you indicated that modifications should only be made under exceptional circumstances, and only to facilitate the voting process. Is that correct?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.