Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

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

Yes, but is it the interpretation that they changed in Quebec, or did he use his power of discretion to say “I will force them to unveil”? There's a difference between the two, the interpretation. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of the country, was very clear by saying, “I want Mr. Mayrand to follow the law”. Okay. Now he's saying, “I'm following the law, because there's nothing in the law that tells me they have to unveil; now I'm following the law”.

Now, though, through his discretion with the power he had, he could have said, “Well, because of social peace, because of the way it's going, the parliamentary committee of the House on procedure, all parties have recommended...”, and he could have gone that way with his discretion. If he broke the law, if the interpretation leads to the possibility of breaking the law, we could go to the court and get the interpretation.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Of course, that would be an option, to try to determine and define what the intent of Parliament was. There are always great debates about what that is when you go to the courts. Believe it or not, the courts take a dim view of even looking at parliamentary debates, and parliamentary committee debates, as evidence of what the true intention of parliamentarians is. The intention of parliamentarians is, generally speaking, the courts believe, something only the courts can divine and not the parliamentarians.

Here we had an opportunity, however, with this committee having weighed in on the issue, and other parliamentarians, and with the Chief Electoral Officer having indicated he had flexibility to do that, it was our hope he would do that. He didn't do that, and he made it quite clear that he wouldn't either change his interpretation or, as in the other option you speak of, make use of his adaptation powers.

That's why we're here with this bill now.

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

When we look at identification, photo ID--the idea of photo ID--is it not to look at the photo and the person? If the other rule of our bill is that you show two pieces of ID with no photo, isn't it possible that the person working at the poll won't know the person in front of them and cannot match because there's no photo?

We're here to question the bill and then to make a decision about if we're going to vote for the bill, yes or no.

Does it make any difference? I could be working at the poll and about 5,000 people come to vote there. I don't know those people. They show me two pieces of ID with no photo. If I don't know them, how do I match the face with the ID?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Obviously, under that, you don't. I gather that this committee debated previously the notion of national voter registration cards, which came out, I believe, in the discussions in the report that went into the recommendations that led to Bill C-31, and using that kind of approach was rejected. So short of a national voting card with identification, you have to deal with the fact that many Canadians don't have photo ID. That's why the current regime was chosen.

What I can tell you, however, is that when somebody does show their face at a polling station, if they then come to vote again half an hour later, because they have shown their face--even if they have someone else's identification--it will be possible for the scrutineers, the election officials working at that polling station, to notice that it's the same person again trying to vote fraudulently using someone else's identification.

When you're talking about maintaining the integrity of the electoral process to prevent voter fraud, even without photo identification, even when other pieces of identification are used, you have a positive and salutary effect on enhancing the integrity of the electoral process. That's what this is all about, fundamentally.

The two bills we're dealing with today are both building on Bill C-31. They're dealing with unanticipated consequences or interpretations that came out of Bill C-31. In that sense, if we're looking for our original intent, which comes from Bill C-31, to increase the integrity of the voter process, to reduce voter fraud, this will go some distance to advancing that.

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

But in the past, prior to bill C-31, there were recognized cases of fraud, weren't there? Is that acknowledged?

Under bill C-31, for example, electoral workers are prevented from testifying that the same individual is attempting to vote. I don't think that if you vote in the morning at a particular polling station, that you're going to be recognized at that same polling station in the afternoon. These employees see thousands of people. If somebody shows two pieces of ID and his or her face, does that really prevent that individual from committing fraud?

And what's more, I'm wondering if there were actually cases of fraud?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Obviously that's one of the reasons we have scrutineers at polling stations: we think they are more likely to recognize.... Parties are allowed the right to scrutineer because we think people will have an opportunity to see if there's fraud occurring.

Some people can remember faces better than others, that's absolutely true, but if you can't see the face, there is no chance of doing that. You could say they're wearing the same Halloween mask as the guy this morning, but if you take away that element, that opportunity for fraud, it's less likely to occur. That's what we're reducing here--an opportunity for fraud.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, colleagues.

We are going to enter our second round. I want to mention to colleagues not to repeat questions and to keep them as short as possible. We are running out of time on the first hour. However, with the minister here, I think we should continue with this.

We'll go to our second round. Each person has five minutes.

We'll start with Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. Thank you for appearing in front of the committee.

I have a short comment. I don't need an answer, but I presume the seven ballots that came from an unoccupied house in that municipal election were in your favour.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

No ballots came.

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

I see.

Minister, I have a bit of a problem making up my mind and I want some technical help from you.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the practice of religion to our choice. How does the fact that a woman who by religious convictions decides to be veiled come into conflict with the fact that she wants to vote while respecting her religious beliefs? Have you had opinions? Are there ways we could have opinions from constitutional experts, lawyers, etc., in the sense that...? Are you convinced we could, by a change in the election law, force women not to--and I'm saying “not necessarily”--respect their religious beliefs?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It was not an election; it was a referendum. That's because in Ontario owners of property can vote, but not seven times. You're only allowed to vote once in the municipality.

The question of the charter and the balancing is perhaps the core philosophical question behind what we're wrestling with here. When you have competing rights and responsibilities, it's often what you have to wrestle with as public policymakers or as courts. Here we are dealing with fundamental rights to vote, the integrity of that system, and people's religious beliefs.

I'm not a theologian and I'm not going to pretend to be one. There's certainly been a lot of comment offered by people from the Islamic community suggesting that the wearing of a veil in this particular issue of face covering is not a religious requirement but rather a cultural choice. I'm not going to decide that question. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that question.

What we have attempted to do with this bill and with the flexibility that's available to the Chief Electoral Officer is achieve that balance, even if it is someone's religious view and somebody determines that is a valid religion--but, of course, what's a valid religion? If someone says their religion involves human sacrifice, obviously we say we don't accept that; we say that the right of an individual to life and to not be killed trumps that. As I say, there are times when you have to decide where you come down. I think here you've got a solution that allows people to vote and also gives the Chief Electoral Officer the ability to create the flexibility to respect those cultural or religious norms, if that's what they are, while still requiring a visual demonstration of identification.

I've said this before on the positive beneficial effect. What I think offended most Canadians was the notion of special treatment and lack of equality in different people being given different rights or different treatment. Then the other fear was that the different treatment could be abused by other individuals who, under the guise of pretending they had a religious view or something else, would then be able to commit fraud. That was not the intention.

I think the balance has been struck here. I'm sure you could have different views from different people depending on how they interpret both the theological questions and the balancing of rights.

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

Minister, you said you didn't have an opinion as far as the Constitution was concerned. Surely your lawyers within either PCO or the justice department must have issued some opinions on whether it was respected or not. Did you not get opinions of that sort, one way or the other?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We did get an opinion, and the conclusion is that the bill is valid under the charter.

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

In regard to voting by mail, Minister, is it the next step that you're going to require voters to give us names of witnesses who made sure that the person who received the voting kit was actually the person who voted?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

There's no proposal to do that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, you've mentioned the earlier bill that was tabled and the feedback that had been received, both in committee and probably by your office, regarding the interpretation of the CEO with respect to the first bill that was passed. Now that this bill has been tabled in the House and is being debated, have you received any negative or positive feedback from groups regarding what's happening right now?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We have done some consultation. The strongest feedback was actually from a group that didn't wish to see any kind of accommodation, a position similar I think to the position of the Bloc Québécois. But by and large, I think most people are content, in our consultation elsewhere, that this will resolve the issue.

I don't think the Chief Electoral Officer had a particular view about what should or shouldn't be done. I think his position has always been that he thinks he's interpreting what he's getting from us and what we give to him he will work with. I haven't had an objection from the Chief Electoral Officer—I don't know if you have—to the bill as we've proposed it. I think perhaps the flexibility you see there, in clauses 3 and 4, is a consequence of Elections Canada's identification of their needs.

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

What I was trying to determine was that since Bill C-6 has been tabled, there has been no uproar against it. No one is raising their arms and saying that's absolutely the wrong approach. The reason I'm asking is because if that is the case, as you mentioned, we seemed to have all-party support at one time. We do work closely with the other parties. I don't want to put you in a difficult position, but I'm wondering if you still sense all-party support. If not, have recommendations been made to win all-party support?

Groups have not approached and said that Bill C-6 is absolutely in the wrong direction. They're in favour of it. Yet we seem to be losing party support. From my perspective, I'm wondering if that's all-party support. Is that from your perspective as well?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'm not going to speak for the other parties, particularly where there is some ambiguity. I think the NDP remains fairly supportive on this. The Bloc, I know, has a view about the flexibility provided to the Chief Electoral Officer, and they will decide in the end through your process here at the committee, if they fail to eliminate that, whether they will still support the bill. I hope they will, and I hope the same will be the case for the Liberal Party, because I think the flexibility that we have provided in this bill provides the measures necessary to deal with the exceptional cases, and I think doing differently would have some of the harmful social consequences that all of us want to avoid having.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

I'll offer a spot to the Bloc. Madame Picard, you have five minutes, please.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to what you said a little earlier regarding the Chief Electoral Officer's flexibility under bill C-6. You indicated that similar flexibility existed in airports, at customs, etc. I don't exactly agree with you. Being asked to vote with an uncovered face is quite different from having one's clothes taken off or being subjected to a search to determine whether or not you're hiding something illegal. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the same thing.

I also believe that this flexibility is discriminatory insofar as we don't all live in big cities where, at a particular polling station, there may be 20 polling booths and both female and male staff. There are places, in some small municipalities in my riding for example, where there's only a single polling booth, and where the deputy returning officer and poll clerk are all men.

What's a person supposed to do in such a situation? Should you call the returning officer and ask him to send a woman because a veiled female does not want to uncover her face?

In some countries, such as Morocco, where the majority of women are veiled, they are required to take off their veils, whether they are men or women, and there's no problem with that. And yet here, this flexibility is given. It makes me a little uncomfortable. What would happen if groups of women decided by way of protest to go and vote veiled and ask for someone to identify them in a polling booth by showing their faces? This flexibility makes me uncomfortable.

Moreover, have any groups of Muslim women been demanding the right to vote while veiled? You've organized a lot of consultations, so you can tell me what those consultative groups were and whether, among those groups, there were any Muslim women asking to vote while veiled.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Firstly, on the last question of whether there are Muslim groups asking to be able to vote while veiled, the answer is still no. I think that, as I said, all indicated a willingness to show their faces. And in most cases they're quite prepared to, it's my understanding, even if it's not to a female official, and there may be some small cases where that is an issue, but the numbers are very small. So in terms of the resources and the application of the resources to the appropriate places, the Chief Electoral Officer I think will be able to do that.

I do think the analogy to border crossings is actually point on because it deals with passports, with people showing their passports when entering the country, and having to demonstrate their identification at that point. They are required to do that. And, yes, there are some large border customs or customs and immigration-type entry points in airports, but there are also pretty small lonely ones in some border crossings that are not staffed by dozens of people. So from that perspective, I do think the analogy is valid and it hasn't been controversial there.

I think, though, when we again take everything here, we've balanced all of the interests, everybody should be satisfied, and the ability to vote is protected and the ability to respect the cultural norm is protected as well.