Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

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

A yellow card--excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think there was a spanking offered over there, but we're not going to do that.

Members know we can't comment on the attendance of any other members.

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

I'll take the yellow card, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

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

Despite that little uproar, I'm going to read what Monsieur Godin said because I think it's important and I have respect for what he said.

Monsieur Godin said,

Going back to that situation, yes, our party supports the bill.

The purpose of the bill was to guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and the ability to identify voters.

Mr. Godin continued as follows:

I think it's because of society, because it appears that most people don't accept that. [They don't accept the Elections Canada decision.] We want it to be—

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

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the minutes, I'd like this document to be tabled because it states: “Elections Canada”, and I don't think the document mentioned that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

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

He's putting words—

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me one moment, Mr. Lemieux.

I'm having some discussion here about the tabling of documents at committee. Unlike the situation in the House of Commons, documents don't technically have to be tabled, but there has been a request that you put that particular document before us, and I would ask that you do it. We can get a copy to Mr. Godin.

Is that sufficient?

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

Yes. Can we do that after the meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good. We're all happy.

Mr. Lemieux, please carry on.

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

Yes, that's not a problem.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I assume you would ensure that all documents tabled are distributed by the clerk to all members, and that we take care to ensure that they're in both official languages, and all of that good stuff, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is it all members who wish a copy of that document?

We technically don't table documents, but I'm happy to do this. The member has agreed to do it, so we will get a copy of that document.

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

This document right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's fine. We'll table the exact document.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It's just that my experience in committees that I've been on is that regularly I would ask, “Would you mind giving me a copy?” Then the chair would always say, “Well, of course, the clerk will get it. We'll make sure it's available in both official languages, as our rules require, and we'll then ensure that all members get it.”

I think it's just a good standard practice. It may not be the practice adopted here, and every committee can do its own thing, but I think it's a good general practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't have a problem with that. We'll get the document. If it's not in both official languages, I'll ask our clerk to have it translated as quickly as possible and get it out to the members.

Is everybody happy? Perfect.

Mr. Lemieux, please carry on.

[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--

[An hon. member]

That's what Canadians want.

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

--and sometimes voting on issues--for example, my motion--doesn't always focus on logic. It doesn't always focus on what is best for Canadians--for example, I'm talking about the electoral process here--and instead it can become somewhat partisan.

I think this is a concern that we have had to this point with the election financing motion that, actually, Mr. Lukiwski spoke so eloquently about.

When Mr. Lukiwski spoke, of course, and it's good to be clear about this...our party and we as MPs sitting here on a committee are willing to move forward right away, if necessary—for example, if the other MPs were to agree to it, to basically move on. We would be willing to move forward quickly—I want to put the word “quickly” in there—if all parties would—

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Again, Mr. Chair, on a similar point of order as before, I wonder if Mr. Lemieux could define “quickly” for us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay. That's a good point.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

That is a good point.

It's hard for me to give a quantitative answer to that, because it would depend on what state the books of the opposition are in. We know that our books are in good order.