[Canada] Elections chief refuses to bow to will of committee (about Muslim veils)

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's chief electoral officer says he will not bow to the will of a Commons committee, only to the will of Parliament as a whole on the issue of forcing veiled women to bare their faces at polling stations.

Marc Mayrand has told the procedure and house affairs committee that in 140 years of Canadian history, there has never been a problem with veiled women voting.

Mayrand says he warned politicians months ago that new elections legislation would not require veiled women to bare their faces at polling stations.

But he told committee members that neither senators nor MPs raised any concerns about the matter at that time.

Mayrand says he has discretionary powers during elections to change the rules but he says those powers are only to be used in exceptional circumstances and he does not consider veiled voting an exceptional circumstance.

The elections chief told the MPs that "juggling" voting rights and freedom of religion are "not up to an administrator of the system."

The controversy was sparked after reporters began asking Elections Canada about the issue of face coverings and next Monday's federal byelections in three Quebec ridings.

Veiled women number in the dozens. Mayrand has pointed out that 80,000 Canadians voted by mail during the last election.

Mayrand says veiled women will be asked to voluntarily unveil on voting day, in a "respectful and dignified manner." If they refuse, they can be asked to take an oath and have someone who lives in their polling division vouch for them.

All four federal parties - and Prime Minister Stephen Harper - have criticized Elections Canada for not making unveiling a requirement.

The statute has to be changed to make it clear that Parliament intends that women who want to vote must be prepared to show their faces so that their identification can be confirmed.

But Mayrand is correct. A parliamentary committee cannot tell him to change the law or how to interpret statutory language.

If Elections Canada is wrong in its application of the rules of statutory construction, it is the job of a court of inherent jurisdiction to correct him.

If the statute has not correctly set out Parliament's intent, then is is the job of Parliament to amend the statute to use clearer language.

Elections Caanada is not a legislative body, or a court of inherent jurisdiction. Its regulating and adjudicating power is striclty constrained by the words of the statute as construed by settled rules of statutory construction.

No parliamentary committee or prime minister has the right to tell Elections Canada how to construe the language of the statute or to supervise his administration of the statute.

Elections Canada is responsible and accountable to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister or any committee of Parliament. Its construction of the statute is subject to review by the Court, not by parliamentary committee.

The prime minister, the four political parties and the parliamentary committee are treading dangerously close to improper and unlawful interference with the independence of the electoral process.

And I say this even though I think that they are correct in their stance on veils at the polling station.

The statute has to be changed to make it clear that Parliament intends that women who want to vote must be prepared to show their faces so that their identification can be confirmed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is a laod of crapola.

Ones face has alweays been used to ID people for all governmental functions, passports, driver licenses, and security passes. Its the same with voting. If a veiled woman or man will not show their face in order to ID them, then they should not be allowed to vote. The vote is by secret ballot, and showing nes face on an id necessity, prevents multiple votes by the same person.

This electoral functionary simply should be fired, for cause, and replaced by someone with some hutzpah!

Whether or not he is a liberal appointee and whether or not he is placing an interpretation on the statute that is not according to its clear language, if politicians can order him to change his rulings then his independence is lost.

The correct remedies are:

- a judicial review of the ruling by a court, or,

- referral by the parliamentary committee to the whole House and summoning him before a Committee of the Whole, or,

- parliament to enact amendments to the language in the statute upon which he relies.

He has pointed to language in the statute that allows a person to be vouched for by a person who has shown photo id and barred the person so vouching from vouching for more than one person and has pointed out that thousands of persons vote by mail without having to show their faces to an election official.

If he is wrong in his statutory construction, let him be corrected by a Court or by parliament sitting as a Committee of the Whole

If the statute actually allows such methods of voting and this is not acceptable, let Parliament change it.

And if he ought to be fired, let parliament fire him.

For him to be subject to discipline by less than parliament as a whole is to allow political interference in the electoral process. Elections Canada was explicitly set up to prevent such political interference

I agree that allowing masked persons to vote or to accept a ballot for insertion into a box, whether it be personally or by mail, without adequate identification of the person submitting the ballot is to allow potential fraud.

And this is true whether the person is a veiled Muslim or a nice Catholic girl earning herself the price of a new coat by going from poll-to-poll to vote under fictional names, as I saw happening in Quebec during the 1950s.

Don W and Candor7, I agree with your outrage. But I still maintain that if Mayrand is wrong it is for Parliament as a whole to correct him, not a committee and not the Prime Minister, no matter how many government or opposition politicians agree with him.

And if the statute is wrong, then it is for Parliament to amend it, not for a committee or a Prime Minister to do an end run around it by exerting political pressure on Elections Canada.

Otherwise the next chief electoral officer will have no protection for his independence from political pressure.

Parliament has its remedy and it can be an expeditious one if Parliament has the political will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.