Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Seeing no other speakers, we will have a recorded vote on NDP-29.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We will consider LIB-17.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

LIB-17 has the same thrust, obviously, to restore what I feel is a fundamental piece of identification that has been used for well on 50 years. I didn't speak to the NDP amendments earlier, because I wanted to speak to my own here, which we're trying to do.

Honestly, I feel that, as I've said before, the voter information card—and I think it bears repeating—is such a dependable piece that I'm willing to bet when the government says the vast majority of people out there have no problems with what they perceive to be going on, identification of a particular person, to vouch for that person's ID.... They want people to show ID. I don't think a lot of people out there are exactly aware of what is being proposed here.

What bothers me is the end goal seems to be to get people in mind who they do not want to see at the polls, and reverse, engineer back to how they're going to set up legislation to do this in a very subtle way. I do believe this will come home to roost when you see voting day, and when people show up en masse with their voter information cards, using them as ID and being told they can't.

As I've said earlier, I considered proposing an amendment so that on the voter information card it has to contain the wording, “This piece of paper will not allow you to vote at the polls. You cannot use this as a valid piece of ID”, in bold letters,

both in English and French.

I didn't do that. I didn't propose it, because earlier I said we're being far too prescriptive when it comes to allowing Elections Canada to do their job. I say this here in committee so that Elections Canada will take this advice and do that. I think the government would agree with me. They're going to have to do this, because it is such a vital piece.

You go to a seniors residence or a senior's home, and you will see it taped to their fridge or on the table. During the writ period, that VIC is a prominent piece of mail because they know they've been using it for over 50 years to walk in and say, “This is my direct connection. This is my ticket.” It's like you can't get on the plane without a boarding pass. You cannot vote without this VIC.

They can pretend that's not going to take place. This is why I asked Mr. Richards earlier about the fact that when you do your advertising, you have to state unequivocally that you cannot use this, and here's why.

In my riding, I have 193 communities with over 200 polling stations. If you look at a map, it's just a massive spread of polling divisions across 30,000 square kilometres. A lot of people commute to work for a half-hour or an hour, that sort of thing. I'm not saying my riding is exclusive to this. A lot of people have long commutes. But when they come home from work and they go to the polling division, their community does not have a polling division. Their polling division is 20 kilometres down the road. I would say—I don't know exactly—that would affect somewhere between 30 or 40 communities that do not have that polling division in their community. They're going to return home after work, or wherever they come from—perhaps they're visiting someone—and go to a polling division. They are going to have their VIC, which they picked up in the mail. They are going to try to use it and be told they cannot. They have to prove their residence. Many people realize that doesn't suffice, so now they have to go back home and find a utility bill. Then, all of a sudden, they say to themselves that if they can't vote now, they're not coming back. They're just not going to do it.

Many people have a post office box. There has been some contention as to whether that is going to allow them to vote or not, but no matter. If somebody can prove that only having a post office box will still allow you to vote, there's always that hesitation from the people working in the polls. That hesitation is going to cause them to go away and not come back.

We have seen it. We all have anecdotal evidence, most of which is true. We all know this to be....

Do the people in the government who keep saying that this is not a big deal...? They must agree with me that when they campaign, and they go door to door and inside that door, that voter information card is handy. Even the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said he'd witnessed many of them. I'm assuming that part is correct, that he did see a lot of those VICs.

Make no mistake that this is going to be a problem realized on that day. I suspect that after the next election day the government, whoever it is, is going to have to reverse engineer this back to get the VICs back into the business of being a part of the democratic exercise. As my colleague points out, it is something that is updated even better than driver's licences. Federal ID that has an address on it....

I don't want to overstate it, and perhaps it's a little late and maybe I have, but I'd like to think, and it's late, and pardon me, Chair, if this is being repetitive, but this is a fundamental piece of information that puts us towards democracy that people fought and died for, and don't accuse me of being over-dramatic on this because that VIC is a prominent piece. I can tell you, when I tell people, they say, “Well, there's nothing wrong with having to prove who you are in order to vote.” I say, “Do you know that card you use?” They say, “I use it all the time.” I say, “You can't use it anymore.” They're bewildered on why that would be, because it is such a fundamental part.

This leads us to think, if the government feels it's such a detriment and if there's so much fraud and irregularities taking place with this VIC, why would they just get rid of it? Did they not explore the idea of why? All we get is one example of a television program in Quebec that did something. As my colleague also pointed out, think about what you have to go through to take the VIC and use that second piece of ID to produce some fake ID with a signature. Is it really worth that? If you're going to do that, you might as well do something ludicrous like call some random person and tell them that their voting place has changed location.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who would do that?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Who would do that?

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

Apparently nobody according to the—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm sorry, Mr. Wallace. If my speech interrupts your heckling, I apologize.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Blame him for interrupting. He interrupted you, Mr. Simms. You should be asking him not to be heckling while you're speaking.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I will say that if you take the VIC, I don't understand what evidence was handed to them that showed them that the only way around this situation was to eliminate that vital card that linked one individual and the right enshrined under section 3 of the charter to vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

We'll vote on LIB-17, which will, of course, also cover PV-28.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Folks, when I get halfway into the vote, you probably are too late to do it, but I'll be nice.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

NDP-30 went away. I think PV-29 went away, as did NDP-31 and NDP-32.

We're on NDP-33.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I would like to move NDP-33.

The amendment would delete proposed subsection 143(3.3) in Bill C-23. The proposed subsection in the bill reads as follows:

A candidate or their representative may examine but not handle any piece of identification presented under this section.

Now, “a candidate or their representative” is effectively shorthand for scrutineers. It's very rare you'll have a candidate bouncing around at every polling station, so it's a representative. What this authorizes is that those who are not actually the desk officers but the people making sure that the process, for your party's sake, for your candidate's sake, is working well can simply say, “Can I see that piece of ID?” They can examine it but not handle it.

I'm not going to say it's a matter of handling; it's just that somebody has to hold it up to them and they can see it. The Chief Electoral Officer brought our attention to this. It was part of his amendments. He suggested that this be deleted, so this is what this amendment does. It would delete those lines, and therefore this new provision wouldn't exist.

I won't give you the number of reasons, just in case I forget what number I gave, but one reason this is a problem is privacy. For average voters there are pieces of ID on the lists, and on maybe expanded lists, that might have information that a person is content that a person at the table could look at but not a random person.

The second thing is it has the potential, and this was actually the Chief Electoral Officer's point, to produce the perception, or the feeling, on the part of the voter of harassment. It doesn't actually have to be harassment for that to occur and for that to produce some kind of a disincentive to voting the next time, or just an unpleasant experience during voting, which has to be avoided at all costs.

The third thing is that it could actually be harassment or intimidation. Let's just say that's unlikely, by and large; I don't assume that average scrutineers will act any more dishonourably than the average voter. We don't believe the average voter is inclined to commit fraud. I don't believe the average scrutineer would intentionally harass or intimidate, but that would be perhaps the result and the feeling.

There's a last thing that's tied to these: lineups. Really, the idea that you have an enthusiastic scrutineer, who does not have to have any bad faith, or simply a scrutineer under instructions to carefully check ID.... It produces lineups. It produces frustration. It could even produce, among people at the end of the line, their deciding not to wait anymore.

Canadians, by the way, however much we are maybe one people who will line up better than others, are not exactly patient when it comes to this kind of thing. People are used to fairly quick voting in this country. This could contribute to a very different experience. There are reports south of the border of the use of asking for ID as a way to create lineups. I would hope we wouldn't get into that kind of scenario, but it's possible.

I would end by saying, Mr. Chair, that I move to delete this new examination of identification documents provision, and leave it in your capable hands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Madam Latendresse.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'll be brief. I just have one thing to add, one of the reasons this amendment is so significant.

One of the documents you can use for identification purposes is a credit card or bank statement. I can easily picture a scenario where, without the elector's consent, their credit card statement could be seen by anyone, by any polling official who asks to see it. I don't think that's a very good way to protect people's privacy. This isn't an important provision, and I think it should be removed.

Therefore I will be supporting my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I'll call the question on NDP-33.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

With a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll now go to LIB-19. It has some conflicts with PV-30. They're all about the same issue, but written in different ways.

It's yours, go.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Did you say they were linked or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, it's linked with PV-30.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So whatever happens on this, will happen on it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I got it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Do a good job.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

You want to talk, too? I'll share my time, how's that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

My amendment is riding on you.