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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's begin our meeting today.

First of all, welcome. Thank you for attending the meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we have, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 15, 2007, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters). We have the honourable minister before us this morning for that, which I hope we can deal with in the first hour.

Colleagues, following the first hour we will also have the minister with us, but we will be dealing with a separate bill, Bill C-18. We can go into that in the second hour.

As well, colleagues, I'm going to ask that we have an additional fifteen minutes—and we probably don't need that long, but an extra fifteen minutes—to deal with committee business at the end. We will do our best to speed it along, but we do have some committee business.

Without further ado, I would like to welcome the honourable minister, Mr. Peter Van Loan, leader of the government in the House of Commons and the Minister for Democratic Reform.

Minister, I will ask you to introduce your team, and then we will allow you some time for an opening statement.

Colleagues, we'll follow the usual procedure of a seven-minute round of questions. And, members, in front of you is the legislative summary for Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters). Although the minister is here and has a number of bills before us, it would be very helpful to stay focused on this particular bill. We'll deal with the other ones as they come up.

Minister, I'm going to offer you the floor for your opening statement, please. Welcome. Could you introduce your team?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

I'd like to start off by giving Natasha Kim and Marc Chénier an opportunity to tell you themselves about themselves.

[Natasha Kim, Senior Policy Advisor, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office]

Hello. I'm Natasha Kim, from Privy Council Office—senior policy analyst.

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

And you are here dealing with...?

[Natasha Kim]

Bill C-6.

[Marc Chénier, Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office]

My name is Marc Chénier and I am the legal counsel at the Privy Council Office's Legislation and House Planning section. I am here for the consideration of Bill C-18.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here in this room, notwithstanding the terrible acoustics under the portrait of the fathers of Confederation and Sir John A. Macdonald done by Rex Woods, especially after a weekend of enjoying that great national cultural event, the Grey Cup, in which people from all across our country come together to share what they have in common in a way that Sir John A. Macdonald would have wanted them to, by enjoying the odd beverage and having a good time. Tom is, of course, very proud of his Saskatchewan Roughriders and the result.

I want to start by thanking all the members of the committee, including you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the government's visual identification of voters bill. The government introduced Bill C-31 in the last session of Parliament. It was a bill to improve the integrity of the voting process and to prevent voter fraud, and while the legislation made many changes, the one we are dealing with today responds to how that bill was interpreted by the Chief Electoral Officer in the conduct of applying the voter identification requirements.

Before Bill C-31 was enacted, voters could simply turn up at a polling station, give their name and their address, and vote.

Since then, and for the first time, voters will have to establish their identity and indicate their place of residence before being able to vote.

After Bill C-31 received royal assent on June 22, 2007, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer decided that the changes would be implemented in time for the September 17, 2007, by-elections in Quebec.

Later, the Chief Electoral Officer publicly stated that contrary to what I believe Parliament's intent was—namely, that voters would have to demonstrate their identity before voting—people would be permitted to vote while concealing their face.

Beside the fact that it's not logical for someone to demonstrate their identity while concealing their face, the decision went against what I think most people saw as common sense, and it left many people shaking their heads. All of us, as parliamentarians, probably heard about it from our constituents.

The government was of the opinion that this interpretation of the act did not take into account Parliament's clear will and intentions, and called on the Chief Electoral Officer to review his decision.

The government was not alone in asking for this. All four political parties in the House of Commons expressed disagreement with the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation, and in September this committee, on a recorded motion, unanimously passed the following motion:

That the committee call on the Electoral Officer to use his powers of adaptation to require electors to show their faces before being permitted to vote at voting stations across the country.

Moreover, many other members of Parliament from all political parties expressed their support for the requirement to demonstrate visual identity. For example, on September 7, 2007, Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party, issued a statement that said the following:

...we do believe that when they are casting a vote in elections, Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities. For this reason, we would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision, and to require veiled women to unveil their faces to confirm their identities.

Later, on September 10, 2007, he told the Canadian press, “We disagree with Elections Canada's decision and we ask them to revisit their decision”, and then again later the same day, “At the end of the day, you must be able to identify yourself when you vote.”

On October 24, 2007, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings told the Montreal Gazette, “I think that people showing their faces for identification purposes to vote is fine.” She went on to say:

“Most of the Muslim community say so as well. They didn't ask for the ruling that the chief electoral officer made. Nobody had asked for the right to vote with their faces covered. It was a unilateral decision on the part of the chief electoral officer.”

I think that Madam Jennings hit the nail on the head when she said that, and that is in fact why we are here. It is not because of any decision or action taken by parliamentarians in adopting Bill C-31, but rather in consequence of the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer and his reluctance to accede to the advice of this committee when the matter was discussed in September.

The Canadian Press reported that “NDP Leader Jack Layton said he continues to hold out hope that Mayrand”—that's the Chief Electoral Officer—“will change his position before the byelections, but is prepared to support a legislative move. 'If not, it appears it will be necessary to change the law to make it clear.'” During committee hearings in September, Mr. Dewar said the following: “...the position from our party has been clear. ...that you show your face; the veil has to be removed to get your ballot.”

However, despite the overwhelming support from the party leaders and members of Parliament for voters to show their faces before voting, the Chief Electoral Officer refused to heed that expressed intent of Parliament and of the committee, and on election day we saw the consequences of that decision. In several places in the ridings in Quebec where the by-elections were occurring, people voted while purposefully concealing their faces for no justifiable reason. I think we recall seeing on television one even wearing a pumpkin on their head.

Throughout Canada, these actions and the fact that these folks were permitted to vote in that fashion caused a lot of Canadians to question the credibility and the integrity of our voting process—exactly the opposite of what we were seeking to do with Bill C-31. When people start to ridicule the rules that are in place for an election, that starts to erode public confidence in our system.

I don't believe we as parliamentarians can stand by and allow this to continue; certainly we in the government don't believe we can. We have to ensure that public confidence in our electoral system is maintained.

To maintain that confidence and ensure that the will of Parliament is respected, the government has committed to making the necessary legislative changes, which are in the bill we are discussing with you today. That bill flows directly from the commitment in the October 2000 throne speech.

The legislation sets out a simple requirement for a voter to show their face before voting. It will assist in voter identification, reduce the potential for voter fraud, and enhance the integrity and credibility of the voting process. In short, our bill will prevent someone from, if you will, putting a bed sheet over their head and then going to vote first for themselves and then, using the identification of someone else in their family, voting again somewhere else with someone else's identification—a friend's identification, or bills they've picked up in the mail room of the apartment building, or what not.

The bill also makes Parliament's intent explicit in law, preventing any future disagreements on what the intent of this act is.

There is one exception: an individual may vote with a concealed face if he or she has valid medical reasons to do so.

For example, if a person was severely burned and her face is covered in bandages, she can still vote on the provision that she swear an oath attesting to the fact that uncovering her face would be dangerous to her health.

The bill also takes into consideration the fact that some, because of their cultural customs, cover their faces in public. The bill allows--in fact I argue that they already have this--an additional administrative flexibility for Elections Canada to establish the processes they may need to require visual identification while respecting cultural practices, but the bottom line of equal treatment will be maintained.

It's a position that was supported by NDP Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair. Stéphane Dion felt the same way. He said the following in a statement on September 7, 2007: “We would also propose that female Elections Canada officials be available to confirm the identities of veiled women, thus ensuring their values and privacy are respected.”

The Canadian Islamic Congress agrees as well. The Montreal Gazette reported on September 8 that Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress said the solution is as simple as having women who wear a niqab show their faces to female elections officials.

The government believes our bill is a sensible compromise between respecting cultural customs and maintaining the integrity and credibility of the voting process.

Some critics have claimed our bill is unnecessary because there is no evidence of a problem. Even if this were true, that's surely not a reason for doing nothing, but in fact there is, as we've seen, a problem. Certainly we don't want to wait until we see many documented cases of electoral fraud before we put in processes to prevent that fraud from occurring. The government isn't going to wait for that, and that's why we're taking action now, I think as all parties want us to do.

Nevertheless, it's important for this committee and for Canadians to know that the government did not want to go down this road. We don't believe every single detail of how elections are run and how electoral officers do their work should be made explicit in law. We don't need to sit there and prescribe which pencil or pen or ruler electoral officials use when they check people off the list. However, the Chief Electoral Officer continues to interpret the law in this way, which we know is contrary to what was the expressed will and intent of Parliament and of this committee. That makes it necessary for us in this case to act. The result is our visual identification of voters bill.

The bill requires electors to show their face at the polling station before being able to vote, with the stipulation that an exception be made for medical reasons and accommodation made for persons who normally cover their face in public.

The bill will protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the voting process and ensure that the will and intent of Parliament are respected.

I hope all members of the committee will work with the government to ensure successful passage of this bill. I'd be happy, along with Ms. Kim, to take any questions you have on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Minister. We certainly appreciate your opening comments.

Colleagues, I want to remind members that this meeting is being televised. We will go to our usual seven-minute round of questioning.

First up on my list is Madame Robillard, s'il vous plaît.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Minister, I thank you for being here today with your associates. You've done a very good job at providing a context to the bill which is before us today which, if I've understood correctly, constitutes an addition to Bill C-31. Bill C-31 has already been adopted by Parliament, and its purpose was to increase the methods by which voters can be identified.

I should point out that my party did not necessarily question the Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation. Different people have different interpretations of legislation. Indeed, there was a request made concerning the use of the power of adaptation which is set out in the Elections Act. The Chief Electoral Officer may use a power of adaptation to resolve a particular matter.

Having said this, Minister, following a discussion of this issue, which even went public, various communities throughout the country reacted in certain ways as you pointed out. Various opinions were voiced. And it is very clear that parliamentarians want to make absolutely sure of the identities of those persons who vote.

On this matter, a number of people raised the perhaps problematic issue of voters who exercise their franchise by mail. These people would like to see just as tough voter identification criteria being applied to persons who will opt for a mail-in vote.

Could you remind members of the committee what the current requirements are when it comes to postal voting?

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

You raise a couple of issues.

First, on the question of disputing or disagreeing with the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer, I think actually the leader of the Liberal Party was quite clear when he indicated that “We would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision”, and he made the same statement later, “We disagree with Elections Canada's decision”. So I do believe there was consensus on that question.

On the issue of the special ballot process, the special ballot is very different from people showing up at a polling station on election day with lineups and seeking to vote in person. There's a time pressure issue there in terms of allowing the balloting to occur. The special balloting process is very different. It requires a much more complicated process, where people have to apply. They have to fill out an application form for that particular purpose. They have to provide copies of identification in the acceptable forms. They have to provide additional information, including a birthdate and their gender, that they are not required, of course, to provide at a polling station when they show up to vote. There is, because of the additional time available, an opportunity for election officials to carefully scrutinize the information that comes in and ensure that it is accurate and proper and that there is not an exercise of fraud taking place. That I think has to be looked at very differently from a situation where people are coming up in person, asking to vote right then and there, and looking to be able to cast their ballot and leave immediately.

In fact, one might look at it as actually an additional solution to the problem. If someone is uncomfortable about going to the voting station to vote, even using whatever flexible means the Chief Electoral Officer might apply, this will provide an opportunity for those who are truly uncomfortable to vote by a special ballot, because of course it is something that is available to all voters. So I think these measures, taken together, work well.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Does the minister acknowledge that there is no visual identification of individuals who vote by mail? Any evidence is strictly documentary; there's no visual identification of such individuals. You don't know whether the documents provided actually belong to the individual who has voted by mail. Is that true?

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

As I indicated, obviously it is the case. But there are also the other safety checks and other steps in the process that simply don't apply when you go to vote in person.

When you go to vote in person you don't have to fill out an application form. They don't have many days over which to review the material, cross-check it, to scrutinize it at the level of the returning officer's office. Rather, it's done just simply—when you're voting in person you only have the DROs and the poll clerks, rather than the returning officer's officials, and you don't have that time available. You don't have to provide your birthdate and that other information when you show up at a polling station.

So while it's correct that official identification isn't provided, there are other significant measures of protection that are in place by virtue of time and process and the application form, and the information that's required from you.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

So consequently, Minister, the requirements are different. I understand that proof of identification requirements would be different when voting by mail as opposed to in person.

I'd like to know if your specialists or associates, when preparing Bill C-6, voiced an opinion as to whether or not the bill complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, was the notion of equality between the sexes considered by your associates?

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

I've simply understood that there are no charter issues or problems with the proposed legislation. In terms of quality, one of the most fundamental rights, of course, of a citizen is the right to vote, and obviously things that we do, such as this bill to prevent voter fraud and to prevent people's.... When anybody commits electoral fraud, if somebody is voting wrongly, that affects everybody else's rights. Their right to vote is being diminished by an abuse that's occurring. So by protecting the integrity of the process, we are actually, I believe, reinforcing those rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Minister.

The floor is yours Mr. Lukiwski. You have seven minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for appearing.

Minister, obviously this has been a bit of a controversial bill, particularly in light of the fact that prior to the Quebec by-elections we had meetings at which we invited the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Mayrand, to appear.

I recall questioning Monsieur Mayrand at that time and expressing to him that we had unanimity among the committee members, that everyone on this committee agreed that there should be visual identification before an individual was given the right to cast a ballot. I know that since that time the Liberals have apparently changed their position, but nonetheless, at the time we met with the Chief Electoral Officer we had, I believe, expressed the will of Parliament.

In my opinion, at least--I'm giving my interpretation of that meeting--Monsieur Mayrand expressed his opinion that he would not in fact respect the will of Parliament because there was no proper legislation in place, even though the members of this committee, representing the vast, vast majority of all members in the House of Commons, said they wanted the intent of this bill to be respected and that all voters had to uncover their faces.

I'd like your comments on that, because I'm not quite sure why on one hand Monsieur Mayrand would say he has to respect the will of Parliament, yet at a committee meeting, when the will of Parliament was being expressed verbally, he did not seem to wish to act upon the instructions of this committee.

In fact, in the subsequent Quebec by-elections, there were a number of individuals who, probably as a prank or a bit of a lark, showed up, as you mentioned, at the voting station, one wearing a pumpkin and another some funny masks. I would anticipate, Minister, that this perhaps may be a continuing problem unless we have assurances from Monsieur Mayrand that he will respect this bill itself.

I have some concerns, quite frankly, with all due respect to Monsieur Mayrand and his office, that if he did not respect the will of Parliament as expressed verbally through this committee, what assurances do we have that he will in fact ask individuals to uncover their faces if they show up at a polling station in upcoming by-elections or a federal election wearing a Darth Vader mask or something like that?

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

It's obviously our hope that the bill we are looking at will provide sufficient direction. He was looking for explicit, clear direction, rather than applying an interpretation. I think he also acknowledged he could have equally interpreted the law on the books, Bill C-31, in the other direction to require people to show their identification. We simply encouraged him to do that.

I think here it will not be equally open to him to interpret it either way, but to interpret it in the way we are clearly...it's really now a very clear statutory intent to require visual identification.

The unfortunate thing about it, and I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has learned from this, is that, as far as I know, nobody was asking, no cultural communities in Canada were asking for the right to vote without showing their faces. The major Muslim organizations that appeared on this issue made clear they didn't seek special treatment, they sought equal treatment. They want to be treated the same as everybody else.

The unfortunate consequence of his decision was to thrust, as Marlene Jennings said, these folks into the spotlight, to cause them to be the centre of a controversy that was not of their making, a controversy that only occurred because of an interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a special treatment to a group in society that was not seeking any special treatment. I think some of the negative social impacts of that were unfortunate. I hope the Chief Electoral Officer has taken note of those and has learned from the experience.

I know, when the matter in Bill C-31 was before the committee originally there was a suggestion that he would consult extensively with communities before dealing with the bill and finding out the mechanics of how to make it work. I gather that if there was consultation, it was not that extensive, because certainly those major groups came here saying this was an interpretation they didn't seek and did not want, and they didn't appreciate being targeted.

It's my hope that by this legislation we'll be able to restore that kind of social peace, that people will see that everyone is getting equal treatment. There won't be an artificial controversy that targets anybody. I think all the individuals affected, the affected communities, will be better off for it and all Canadian society will be stronger for it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Do you anticipate any circumstances, Minister, in which an individual, even with this legislation passing, would still have the ability to vote without visual identification as proof of identity? In other words, right now there are two alternatives: you can provide a government-issued piece of ID with your photo on it, or, failing that, you can produce two other pieces of identification as approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, both stating the name of the individual and one stating the residence. But it doesn't appear that visual ID is required on that. Is that still a way for someone to get around this visual ID?

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

No, I don't think it gets you around visual identification. Everyone is going to have to show their face. There will obviously not always be a match to identification, because as this committee learned when it examined the issue originally under Bill C-31, there's a significant part of the population that doesn't have government-issued identification with photographs. Hence, there's a more flexible regime, and the Chief Electoral Officer has come up with a very lengthy list of acceptable identification—some people say too lengthy a list—but everybody showing up at a polling station will be required to show their face. That will allow political party scrutineers to ensure that the same person doesn't show up at three polling stations to vote, or vote three times at same polling station, or to keep showing up for every family member who happens not to be interested in coming to exercise their vote.

Certainly that's always been one of the concerns about processes where the ballots all get mailed to the people's homes and then they vote for everybody in their family, mailing in the ballots. I once had a property where there was a municipal referendum, and although there was nobody actually resident at the household at that time, seven ballots for previous residents showed up there for people to vote. Anybody who wanted could have, in similar situations, voted many times. We don't want that kind of situation.

The rules on the books here are very different. If somebody is voting, for example, by mail-in ballot, the other option, we have the two exceptions. One is for the medical condition and the other one is by the mail-in ballot, and obviously you don't have to show it. But there, as I've indicated earlier, you have the application form, the requirements for identification being provided, the lengthy scrutinizing opportunity for the Elections Canada officials, the requirement for birthdate and for gender, and the requirement for the signature on the application form, which has to be compared to the signature on the identification that's provided. None of these are requirements for the day of voting where the visual identification is required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with, I'd like to make a comment to the minister, and I'm sure he has a thick enough skin to take it.

I've been a member of Parliament since 1993 and I have sat on committees since then. I spent six years at the Standing Committee on Transport. There were very arrogant Liberal ministers. For example, I remember Doug Young, the former Doug Young. Well, he's not dead, but he was formerly a member of Parliament. He was beaten by my colleague Yvon Godin, to my great satisfaction.

Ms. Robillard, my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie sat as minister here. And I've already had the opportunity to question her in the past.

So there were very arrogant ministers, but I can tell you, Minister and Government House Leader, that in my opinion, when you come and testify on bills, you need to stay above the fray. You didn't attack the Bloc that much, but you said things about Mr. Dion, Mr. Mulcair and Ms. Jennings. There was a little bit for everybody in the turkey. There was a thought for everybody, on the eve of the holiday season. And I want to tell you, Minister, that you've missed an important opportunity to show a bit of class and remain above the fray, in introducing your bill.

Having said that, my remark probably won't make waves anywhere. But I didn't make it for effect, I made it as a sincere expression of what I believe.

I'm now going to make a second comment which you'll have the opportunity to respond to. As my colleague Tom Lukiwski mentioned, on the eve of the by-elections in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, it became apparent that the Monday, September 24 election was going to turn into a circus, so much so that the members of our committee decided unanimously to meet and hear from Mr. Mayrand.

I undertook, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to introduce a bill, which is what I did in early October. And you introduced your own. I was fine with that, but our committee unanimously decided that the Chief Electoral Officer enjoyed too much latitude, in other words, had too much leeway. Everyone here agreed that that was the case. He had extraordinary powers that he refused to use, I might add. But in your bill, Minister, you give this discretionary power back to the Chief Electoral Officer, particularly in the first five clauses.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to say, as is the case in Morocco, a 92% or 93% Muslim country, that voters turning up to vote at a polling station must do so with an uncovered face? But no, you are counting the angels on the head of a pin.

Clause 3 of the bill amends section 32.1 of the Act:

32.1 After the issue of the writ, a returning officer may, with the approval of the Chief Electoral Officer, appoint any other persons that are necessary to attend at a polling place for the conduct of the vote.

I had the opportunity of telling the committee that there are 280 residents in the small community of Baie-Sainte-Catherine, in my riding. That means that there are one or two polling stations. Now let's imagine that only men work in these polling stations and that a woman turns up and wants to vote fully veiled. You've given Mr. Mayrand the power to force her to uncover her face in front of a woman, in another room, in a isolated polling booth, or something to that effect. You've complicated the situation.

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

Firstly, on the issue of the thickness of my skin, it may be thin, but there are lots of layers directly underneath that are thick.

The comments I provided at the start, in terms of providing pie for everyone, were actually statements with which we agree. These are our allies. It very much is, as I was suggesting, a non-partisan bill, in that all parties supported this.

My references are to how all parties supported it, and I don't think there was a partisan tone to that at all. I think it was in fact in a non-partisan fashion that I was referring to those, to show the broad support for the principles that all parties had expressed and to which we are responding here—in fact, to the direction of this very committee in September, when they wanted to see action taken on this issue. So from that perspective, I have to respectfully disagree.

In terms of the issue of polling staff and gender, first of all, it's no different from the staffing that's provided, for example, at airport security, the requirements for staffing at customs borders, places where searches are required, or places where people are required to show their identification. It's the same kind of situation. I don't believe anybody has a problem with it in those other contexts. I don't know if the Bloc Québécois has a problem with it in that context, but it's the same thing. So I reject the notion that it's a problem.

In practical terms, the flexibility that is there for the Chief Electoral Officer—a flexibility that's already there in the act, but we've simply expressed an ability to obtain some more resources if need be—is, frankly, one that they can apply already.

In practical terms, I don't think it will be a big problem. We've been told that the places, the number of cases where we need to provide additional flexibility, in staffing terms, where people are going to be uncomfortable, where they're going to need some kind of special measures, are very, very few.

And in practical terms, there has never been, as far as I'm aware, a difficulty or shortage of women in terms of the proportion of staff involved in elections. At the polling stations, there are always a lot of women.

I think, in practical terms, the Chief Electoral Officer will find it very easy to make it work. It can work successfully. It should be no more disruptive, and in fact less disruptive, than what we see in terms of staffing of border crossings and the like, where a similar requirement or demand exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, Mr. Guimond.

We're just over time.

Monsieur Godin, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to thank Minister Peter Van Loan for presenting his bill.

Earlier, Mr. Van Loan, you spoke of the difference between postal voting—that is special voting—and voting in person at a polling station. In your speech, you also spoke of social peace.

So the question is, what about the equality of the vote itself. Take identification, for example. You mustn't try and hide things or make it seem that Mr. Mayrand was the person in the wrong from day one.

Wouldn't you agree that Mr. Mayrand raised the veil issue before the Senate when he indicated an incident may take place and that it was time to address the situation?

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

I think the response of all the parties was similar, certainly some of the parties. As regards your party, I believe your leader indicated that he was still hoping that Mr. Mayrand would revise his interpretation. I know that was the view that I expressed on many occasions. Because it was, by the Chief Electoral Officer's own admission, within his ambit to interpret it either way, our hope was that one could resolve the issue simply, quietly, and without controversy, through a reasonable interpretation.

We know that in Quebec, where a similar issue arose, the Chief Electoral Officer did change the interpretation, however only after a controversy. We were hoping that the interpretation could change before a controversy occurred. Sadly, that did not happen, even after the controversy occurred.