Debates of March 24th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Proposed Changes to the Elections Act

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but an honest comparison between our and the American systems clearly shows there are vast differences in the way we both conduct elections. The point in my speech was to mention the simple turnout in those elections, which is something comparable in both of our nations.

We did cite this particular example, but there are all kinds of data for all kinds of other things on this. I would encourage the hon. member to occasionally sit at our committee meetings if he would like, and he would hear some of those things being debated back and forth.

As I said, this government has an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that they understand how their system of democracy works; how they can contribute to it; how they can come out to vote, where, how, and when, and the options available. It is our responsibility to make sure that they do that. Through this proposed act and the minister's good work, we are going to make sure that all Canadians have a better understanding of their democracy and how to participate in it in the next general election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe that it is good policy to pass election laws without the support of any opposition party or Elections Canada? Is that good policy?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good policy is that all Canadians understand their democratic system. Good policy is that they understand where to vote, how to vote, and be able to participate fully in that process with the full confidence of knowing that their electoral system and their nation are based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which their vote helps contribute to. I am disappointed that my hon. friends opposite cannot see that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I must say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from York South—Weston.

I am pleased to be here today, although it is always strange to say such things, since we would have liked to avoid this kind of issue. We did not want it to come to this.

I am also pleased to rise to speak to this matter in the context of the opposition motion moved by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. The motion calls on the government to remove all the problematic aspects of its bill on electoral reform, or as we like to call it, electoral deform.

We are just coming back from a two-week parliamentary break, and we have all had the chance to be in our constituencies. What is interesting about this issue is that when it comes to issues of procedure and elections, it often seems that people believe that this happens in the Ottawa bubble.

My constituents in Chambly—Borduas are very interested in this matter. For instance, I met with members of the Forum jeunesse Montérégie Est. They came to my office to talk about this issue and their concerns regarding the impact these changes will have on young people.

My colleague's motion has two key elements that will have an impact on young people. The first element has to do with identifying voters, and the second, voter education.

Before I begin, I would like to revisit what we have seen so far in this debate in the House of Commons. Let us talk about Infoman. Two weeks ago, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform gave an interview on an episode of that program. He then said that the NDP members were the big, bad guys, because they did not respect the Infoman news story. However, that is not at all true. Like everyone else, we saw what happened. Yes, it is troublesome to know that such a thing can happen.

Any time changes of this magnitude are made to our democracy, we must go even further with our research. Having a starting point is all well and good; however, if that is the only example they have, that is very troubling. The member who spoke before me even said that other examples and other statistics exist, but he could not quote them because he did not have them in front of him. He invited me to attend their committee meetings. I have already done that.

My colleagues have asked about this repeatedly, and they have yet to get a response. The leader of the official opposition asked both the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and never got an answer. We are told that there are cases; however, no one can cite them. It is very difficult for those of us on this side of the House to take this seriously when we are not seeing much proof of the scope of the issue. We are having a hard time understanding the government's decisions.

We have seen the changes that will be made in terms of voter identification. It is very disturbing. Once again, the member who spoke before me talked a lot about the Americans. In my opinion, that is a questionable comparison given the differences between our two systems.

However, let us continue with that comparison and look at what happened during the last election with all of the issues surrounding voter identification. We saw that the party in power tried to change identification requirements for its own benefit and the benefit of its supporters.

We know full well that, as a group, young people do not support this government's actions. It is understandable that this electoral deform bill worries people, because it makes life more difficult for young people who want to vote.

The minister often responded to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who asked questions about what ID students would need to vote, by saying that it would be fine, they just need a piece of ID with an address.

In reality, when someone goes to university or CEGEP, there are very few ID cards that include an address. I went to CEGEP and university and I did not have an address on my student cards. If people do not have a student card with an address on it or a driver's licence, then they have no identification that includes their address.

Youth are often a target because they do not have a driver's licence or another piece of ID with an address. Other groups are affected as well, including seniors and aboriginal Canadians.

I would like to focus on the impact on young people, a group of voters that the Conservatives would rather push aside.

The timing is interesting. On the weekend, Nik Nanos and Kevin Page—the former parliamentary budget officer who, in turn, was also pushed aside because, as part of his job, he criticized some of the government's measures—released a study showing how the federal political landscape would change if more young people voted. This is definitely worth mentioning because young people do not have the same priorities as the government.

For example, this government does not care about environmental concerns, such as climate change. Nor does it care about youth unemployment. I have worked very hard on that issue together with my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, when she was on the finance committee, and with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is on the committee now. I should actually say that I am working with all of my NDP colleagues.

These studies show that if more young people voted, the level of public support for the government would change dramatically. As politicians, we definitely share a responsibility to encourage young people to vote. However, we cannot do that by making changes that will make it harder for young people and students to vote. This is the opposite of what is happening all over the world, in Quebec, at the provincial level, across Canada and in other countries where students are being encouraged to vote. Other governments are trying to make that easier for them. This government wants to make their lives more difficult.

Students are young people who are often voting for the first time. That makes it even more important because this is their first experience. We know that good civic habits can be shaped during that first experience. That is why we really need to pay attention to this issue.

Beyond the issue of voter identification, the civic education of our young people is another important element. Elections Canada had a mandate to educate Canadians about the importance of voting, for example through advertising campaigns. The government wants to take this power away and argues that it is the responsibility of politicians and political parties.

That is very troubling because even if parties and politicians do have this responsibility, it is just as important for a non-partisan institution such as Elections Canada to also have that responsibility. It is all well and good to put all the power in the hands of political parties and to ask them to take on that responsibility, but we cannot expect them to reach everyone, because they have the bad habit of only targeting the people who vote for them.

That is why it is important for non-partisan people who hold important positions in civil society, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, to promote the importance of voting. That would no longer be the case if this “unfair” electoral reform were to become law.

With respect to the issue of education, the Conservative members and the minister himself often use the lower voter turnout as an argument against the opposition and as justification for taking away Elections Canada's power to promote the importance of voting. This is indicative of the government's cynicism. According to the government, since that did not work, the mandate should be taken away from Elections Canada.

To solve the problem of declining voter turnout, the NDP would do more, not less, which seems to be the government's approach. According to the government, if something is not working at Elections Canada it must be scrapped and something else must be done. The government should take a more proactive approach. It should consider whether Elections Canada could do more to show people how important it is to vote.

Young people represent only one segment of the population that will be negatively affected by this unfair election reform. However, they are a very important segment. After all, young people are the future of our country. That is why I have risen. I want to speak out against these changes and try to make this government listen to reason. We will continue to fight this bill because democracy depends on it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I quoted the leader of the NDP. He said that the findings in the Neufeld report demonstrated serious risks to the integrity of our electoral system. He pointed out in the quote I cited during question period that if we do not know who is voting, how can we possibly guarantee the security of that vote. He was quite right, actually, at the time. The compliance review of Elections Canada showed that there were 45,000 cases where someone was vouched for but there was no record of the voucher and the voter. We cannot possibly enforce the law to ensure that nobody vouches or votes more than once if in 45,000 cases, we do not have any record of who the voucher or the voter was.

Does the NDP member agree with his leader's assessment from last spring when he said that the irregularities linked to vouching and other Elections Canada exception cases are a serious problem for our voting system?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can start off by quoting the same Mr. Neufeld who did say that the minister seems to be taking selective quotes from the report. That is one important issue here.

We are talking about all of these irregularities. The first important thing to note is that irregularities are not fraud. It seems to change daily. The government is talking about fraudsters and we are talking about potential mistakes. The problem is that none of these cases is being put forward. The government is not telling us on what it is basing these decisions. Are we, as members of Parliament, supposed to take that on blind faith and accept these huge changes to our democracy? I do not think that is the case. If the government were more forthcoming with all of these mysterious cases and statistics, we would have a better idea and a more wholesome debate.

That being said, when it comes to the comments of the leader of the official opposition, it is fair to say that all members of Parliament are always concerned with how elections take place. What we are seeing is a sledgehammer being taken to Elections Canada to solve some issues, as serious as they may be. The fact of the matter is that these widespread changes that are even being denounced by the Chief Electoral Officer would clearly go too far when it comes to fixing a few mistakes that might exist in the system. That is what is at stake here.

If the government really wants to fix the problems, it should consult with all parties, as all developed democracies do. This is clearly the only place in the world where it seems that the government is going to use its majority to force through election reforms. If the government wants to do that, then it should be more forthcoming with that and bring more sensible, common-sense modifications to the laws we already have instead of changing them wholesale to suit its own needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's sledgehammer comment and the idea of vouching.

Thousands of Canadians participated in the last federal election because of vouching. I would like to give the House one of many examples that could be cited. There are many members in the House whose constituencies comprise smaller rural communities where everyone knows everyone. The government is now coming down harsh with its sledgehammer, implying that it was a bad thing that someone was vouched for in the last election. That, in fact, enabled thousands of people to vote.

Could the member comment on that?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. This issue is indeed very worrisome. It seems the government is accusing people who used this system of being fraudsters when that is not at all the case. The current legislation ensures that anyone vouching for another voter must provide an address. They must provide information. The minister is claiming that this was not done.

Instead of making all these changes, why does he not ensure that this system continues to be used? Clearly, this is a very legitimate way of voting. As my colleague mentioned, many people voted in this way. In my opinion, the government is heading down a very slippery slope if it starts implying that those who used the vouching system are fraudsters. That is not the case. I would even go so far as to say that the government's own electorate used this system.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, The Economy; the hon. member for Saint-Jean, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Canada Post.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this unfair elections bill.

Our elections process is going backwards. For the first time in Canada's history, we are disenfranchising people who have been enfranchised in the past. At every other step of the way, whether it was allowing women or aboriginal people to vote, or providing mechanisms for persons with disabilities or for persons who had difficulty proving their identity, we have always moved forward.

We have always moved to enfranchise people, and the Conservative government is moving backwards for the first time in our history. I think it is shameful.

Canadians expect us to fix some of the problems clearly identified by a number of events over the past, since the 2011 election, and even before that. Those events displayed to Canadians that there was a problem with voting: officials of Elections Canada were not following procedures appropriately; the lists are no good; the lists need to be improved; there is a considerably amount of potential cheating happening by political parties; and Canadians expect us to do something about it.

This bill does not do any of those three things. In fact, the bill makes cheating easier in some circumstances. It has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the list itself and on whether the list will in fact be improved—it will not. In terms of voting, all the bill does is disenfranchise a number of individuals who were able to vote before.

First, the minister and others keep talking about these 39 pieces of ID that Canadians can use. In fact, that is not true. None of them are in the bill. These pieces of ID are set by Elections Canada, with the exception that the bill says voters cannot use the voter information card. There are 38 pieces of ID. Those 38 include 25 pieces of ID that can prove who a person is. Then a person needs to find 1 of 13 pieces of ID to prove where he or she lives.

We are really looking at 13 pieces of ID. Those 13 are sometimes completely unavailable to some individuals. For example, a student living not in residence but at the home of another individual in another city wants to be able to prove that he or she lives there.

Those students do not receive a utility bill. They do not have a bank or credit card statement. They do not have vehicle ownership or insurance there. They do not have correspondence issued by a school, college, or university to that place because that is not their original residence. The correspondence would have gone to their other place. They do not have a statement of government benefits because they are not getting them. They do not have an attestation of residence on a first nations band or reserve. They do not have a government cheque or cheque stub. They do not have a pension plan statement of benefits.

They do not have a lease or a mortgage statement. They do not have income or property tax assessment notices because, again; it goes back to their original home. They do not have an insurance policy. They do not have a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or public trustee. They do not have a letter issued by a shelter, soup kitchen, a student residence, or a long-term care facility because they are not in any of those places.

Those students cannot prove their location. It is physically impossible. The government says there are 39 pieces of ID, but not for a student living not in residence and off-campus in another city. It is impossible for them to prove where they live. What are they to do?

In the days before this bill, these students could have been vouched for by someone who knew them, who did have the ability to prove where they live and who lived in the same riding. Now, that is absolutely being taken away from them. That is wrong.

I want to list three other cases of individuals in my riding who, in the last election, actually voted but who will not be able to vote in the next election because their ability to vouch is being taken away.

One of them was a senior citizen who had been living in the same place for the last 55 years, I think it was. For some reason, the voter information card did not arrive. We know what the reason for that was now: Elections Canada decided to change the postal code to the wrong one; another problem that needs fixing that is not being fixed by this bill.

That individual did not have anything to prove her location of residence. She had nothing, and she was terrified. I knocked at her door and reminded her to go vote. She said, “I cannot vote because I cannot prove where I live. I did not get a voter information card, which I would normally have used. I cannot do it now because I cannot prove where I live. I do not have my name on anything here.”

Her husband was standing next to her, and I told him that he could vouch for her. All he had to do was take her to the polling station, and with his ID he could vouch for her. They were overjoyed. However, that would be gone. The next time they would not be able to do that.

Another senior in my riding, who has lived in Canada for about 40 years, cannot get Ontario picture ID. She has been trying for two years. She cannot get it because she does not have the appropriate ID. She has a Canadian citizenship certificate, but it is not the card type; it is the big certificate type, which they will not accept in Ontario. She has a birth certificate, but it is from the wrong country, which they do not accept in Ontario. She has a passport. However, again, it is from the wrong country, which they do not accept in Ontario. She cannot get Ontario picture ID. She is in a position of not being able to use picture ID. She does not have the right kind of ID to vote in terms of proving where she lives. That is the nub of this problem, being able to prove where one lives.

She is now in the process of spending $130, which she does not have because she is a senior, to buy herself a passport. That passport will give her the ability to go to the Ontario government to prove who she is so she can get an Ontario picture ID card. That will cost her another $60. She is spending $190 to get enough ID to vote next time.

Why is it that Canadians have to spend money to vote? That should not happen, but that is happening in her case. It is going to take months. If this happened during the writ period, she would never be able to do that.

Finally, we have a person on disability payments, whose door I knocked on in the last election. I told her that she just needed to show the cheque stub that comes from the Ontario disability system to prove where she lives. She had nothing else. Persons on disability in Ontario are very impoverished. She could not afford cable or a phone, and she had no hydro bill. She had nothing to prove where she lived. Therefore, I suggested that she use the cheque stub.

A stub from a government cheque is a legitimate way of proving one's address. The trouble is, the Ontario government does not put a name and address on the stub. It is only on the cheque itself, which had already been deposited. She had no way of proving her address. In her case, she managed to find somebody in the building who would vouch for her; otherwise, she would not have been able to vote.

Those are three examples.

There is also the issue that Canadians want us to deal with of potential cheating by political parties during an election. There have been a number of allegations, news stories, and various things about robocalls, which were delivered to people to fraudulently send them to the wrong polling station. There were a number of issues regarding overspending by political candidates. There were issues regarding overspending by political parties, particularly the in-and-out scandal of 2006.

However, none of those issues are being dealt with in this proposed legislation. There would not be a way for Elections Canada to investigate properly, to subpoena evidence, to compel testimony, or force a political party to actually disclose what it has done. In fact, the bill goes one step further. It would permit a political party, in the guise of campaign fundraising, to have no limits on what it spends on communications with constituents, or with all of Canada.

The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt very much that the Conservative Party would give out a list of who it has sent communications to if asked by Elections Canada. The Conservatives have not been very forthcoming to this point, and I doubt they would do that to prove that individuals they communicated with have donated money in the past five years. That is unlikely and not going to happen. They are going to send stuff out willy-nilly. That is what will happen.

We would have no limit to the amount of communications that the party can send out during an election writ period, even though right now there is a limit on the amount of money that can be spent during an election. That is a very damaging piece of this puzzle.

I appreciate the time to explain why Bill C-23 does not work, and I urge members opposite to rethink their position and defeat the bill. Take a kill-the-bill position, as we like to say it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to members opposite talk about vouching, the more I wonder. If it is such a good system and so reliable, should it not be expanded? Would the member opposite think that if I went to an airport, for example, with my boarding pass, but had forgotten my wallet, should the person travelling with me be able to simply vouch for my getting on an airplane? Would that be a satisfactory use of vouching? Does the member support expanding something like that?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that in the case of an airport there have been examples of fraud and terrorism that have taken place with the wrong people getting on planes, or by the airport itself not being secure enough. One only has to go back to 9/11, in 2001, to realize that the system of security is of vital importance to the safety of individuals. We have had examples.

There are zero examples of voter fraud that the Conservatives can point to, or anybody can point to. The Conservatives are disenfranchising 120,000 people, and perhaps more, as a result of a story that was concocted about the wide range of voter fraud that might be happening. That is not a legitimate comparison.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather bizarre comparison, airport security versus election voting, to say the very least.

My question goes to the member's comments with regard to the ability to compel. The primary purpose of election laws is to ensure there is a level playing field. With regard to those who get caught breaking the law, perhaps through an in-and-out scandal, campaign over-expenditures, cheating, Elections Canada should have the ability to ensure there is a prosecution in a timely fashion. One of the tools it asked for was the ability to compel, which many provincial jurisdictions already have in terms of their independent election authorities. Without that ability, it arguably weakens Canada's current election laws.

I wonder if the member might want to reinforce that elections laws should be based on a consensus, working with other stakeholders, including other opposition parties, to give strength to the laws. The current legislation would not do that.

Would the member like to comment with regard to the compelling of witnesses?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact there was an all-party agreement in the House that there should be strengthened authority for Elections Canada officials to compel witnesses, and that is not part of this bill. Why is it not part of this bill? It is because there are certain parties in the House who perhaps do not want to be caught out. We on this side of the House want every election to be conducted as honestly and transparently as possible. If that requires that people who cheat the system, or persons allied with the people who cheat the system, be compelled to give testimony, that is what should happen. It is not in this bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have seen a declining percentage of Canadians voting. New Democrats would like to encourage more Canadians to vote, to participate in our democratic system. The Conservatives are hoping that only people who vote Conservative are able to vote in the next election. It is clear that the elimination of vouching and the voter identification card will disenfranchise many Canadians who may or may not vote for the Conservatives.

My question to my colleague is this. We have seen cuts to the programs that encourage Canadian voters. Why are the Conservatives doing this? Why are they not encouraging Canadians to vote instead of suppressing their votes?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the notion that we should stop voter education and voter encouragement is absolutely bizarre. The suggestion a little while ago by my friend from Etobicoke Centre was that it was because it did not work in the past. What? All of that information went for naught? I do not think so. I think the problem is that there was not enough of it. There was not enough voter information. There was not enough voter encouragement.

Canadians have told me at the door that they become tired of politics. That is something we want to change. We would like to see Canadians become more engaged, more responsible, become better participants in our civil democracy. That is what needs to happen, and it is not going to happen if Canadians are going to be turned away at every opportunity by the current government.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to express my views regarding the New Democratic Party's opposition day motion concerning various reforms the fair elections act would bring to voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act.

The motion before the House also deals with the effects of these important reforms for specific groups in Canadian society. My remarks today will focus on this dimension of the issue and will demonstrate why the fair elections act would have beneficial effects on the voting rights of the groups listed in the motion.

I welcome this debate today, because it gives me an opportunity not only to contribute my perspective on what the real impacts of the voter identification reforms and the fair election act would be for the groups specified in the motion before us today but also because it will be an opportunity to provide colleagues with some of my thoughts on the multiple and significant advantages the fair elections act would bring to Canada's electoral system. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of upholding the integrity of our elections and of protecting Canadians' right to vote.

I would like to make it clear to the House from the outset, however, that I disagree with the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today regarding the bill.

The motion would have the House pronounce an opinion against the needed reforms the fair election act would bring to the current voter identification procedures set out in the Canada Elections Act. Furthermore, the motion would have Canadians believe that the fair elections act would have negative effects on the voting rights of the groups specified in today's motion, but I am pleased to say that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the fair elections act would have just the opposite purpose, that of protecting all Canadians' electoral rights from the risks of fraudulent voting and high rates of administrative errors, factors that can undermine confidence in the integrity of elections.

I would like to begin my remarks today with a few preliminary observations regarding the important enhancements the fair elections act would bring to our electoral system. The fair elections act proposes comprehensive changes to the Canada Elections Act. It is unquestionably important legislation that will reinforce the integrity of Canada's elections and will revitalize our democracy.

An element of particular relevance in today's debate is that the fair elections act would provide better customer service for voters by focusing Elections Canada's advertising on the basics of voting: where and when and what identification to bring. This measure will benefit all Canadians, including by facilitating the voting processes for all the specific groups referenced in today's motion.

For example, Elections Canada concluded in its evaluation report on the 41st general election that a top priority to increase youth turnout would be, and I quote, “increasing awareness about when, where and how to vote, by providing information in formats suitable for youth”. The fair elections act would ensure that Elections Canada would focus its communications messages on this crucial information for our electors.

I would like to add that the act would also establish an extra day of advance polling. The proposed change would give Canadians access to four advance polling days: the 10th, 9th, 8th, and the 7th days before election day. This important measure would also benefit all Canadians, including, again, those specific groups in society that are the subject of our debate today.

This would be an appropriate point to note that among the most important initiatives included in the act are measures to combat voter fraud and increase the confidence of Canadians in the electoral process. I think all members can agree that the prevention of electoral fraud is a very worthwhile goal and that every fraudulent vote not only undermines confidence in our elections but also, in effect, cancels out the legitimate vote of a Canadian.

In light of the fact that the motion before the House today refers specifically to the prohibitions in the fair elections act on the use of the vouching procedure and the voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification, I would at this point like to take a few additional minutes to outline for the House precisely why it is imperative that those practices be prohibited.

I will first provide a little background information to explain precisely how the use of the vouching mechanism and the voter information cards for identification purposes relate to the current voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act.

With the passage of Bill C-31 in 2007, a mechanism was introduced for verifying the identity of electors and their residence upon registration at the polls and for voting. This was a significant advancement that our government brought to voter identification for federal elections in Canada. It helped bring us closer to restoring the confidence of Canadians in the electoral process.

As a result of those legislative changes, an elector voting in a federal election at an ordinary polling station must prove his or her identity in one of three ways. The first is by presenting one piece of identification issued by a government that includes a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address. The second is by presenting two pieces of identification, each of which establishes the elector's name and one of which establishes the elector's address. The third is by taking an oath, if accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors and who, after providing the piece or pieces of identification referred to, vouches for the elector on an oath. That is what is known as the vouching process.

There are certain safeguards in place that are intended to make the vouching process more reliable and accurate. For example, the voucher must have the required pieces of identification. He or she cannot previously have been vouched for. The voucher must reside in the same polling division as the elector. The voucher can only vouch for one elector; multiple vouching is prohibited. Most importantly, there is also supposed to be a record of who the voucher is and who he or she vouched for. This ought to create an effective deterrent to anybody who gives thought to vouching for an unqualified elector. However, in practice, those safeguards are undermined by the fact that there are high levels of irregularities being reported at the polls regarding the use of vouching.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching. According to the Neufeld report relating to administrative deficiencies at the polls in the 2011 election, vouching procedures are complex, and there were irregularities in 42% of cases where vouching was used.The report indicates that even with increased quality assurance, the problem would not be remedied. The report found that in 38% of the cases where vouching was required, there was no record in the poll book that clearly indicated both who the voters and the vouchers were. This clearly does not mean that all of these cases were instances of voter fraud. However, it does mean that polling day irregularities by elections officers regularly undermine an essential safeguard in the vouching mechanism, which is to have a record of who vouched for whom.

While Elections Canada has estimated that as many as 120,000 voters chose to use the vouching procedure on election day, those voters could have proven their identity and their residence by other means. The fair elections act will require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of identification would be acceptable at polling locations. This important measure would provide voters with the basic information they need about what identification to bring to the polls before they go to the polls.

I would also add a few words about the measures in the fair elections act regarding voter information cards, which play an important role in informing Canadians about where and when they need to vote. It is important to recognize that voter information cards are not currently authorized forms of identification and cannot be used as proof of identification and residency. Since the voter identification requirements were established in 2007, we have had one general election when voter information cards were permitted to be used on an exceptional basis and one general election when they were not authorized forms of identification at all.

Potentially serious problems could arise if those cards were used as replacements for acceptable identification, since there is evidence that the use of voter information cards as identification presents the risk of voter fraud. For instance, studies commissioned by Elections Canada showed a one-in-six error rate on voter information cards. Such inaccuracies could allow those attempting to subvert election laws to use them to vote more than once or to vote in the wrong riding.

I would like to take a few moments to outline the current situation regarding the various forms of identification available to voters and to address the question of whether the reforms in the fair elections act would have any effect on their availability. This will illustrate quite clearly that the important voter identification measures contained in the fair elections act would not in any way disenfranchise the groups mentioned in today's motion: first-time voters, such as young people and new Canadians; aboriginal Canadians; and seniors living in residences.

I would also like to emphasize that the flexibility of the Canada Elections Act would not change. Rather, the goal of the fair elections act is, as I mentioned earlier, to prohibit only those specific administrative procedures that are risky and counterproductive, in particular the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification. In this way, it would minimize the risks of fraud and error in the voting process.

Nevertheless, even with the new protections introduced by the fair elections act, voters would still be able to choose from among 39 forms of authorized identification to prove their identity and residence, including a lease, bank statements, library cards, hunting licenses, Canadian Forces identity cards, and many more. In fact, the current authorized list includes not only about two dozen different kinds of identity cards but also a wide variety of original documents that contain a name and an address.

I would like to emphasize that this latter point is of particular importance with respect to certain groups in society that for various reasons may face challenges in proving their identity and residence. I would like to take a moment to elaborate on this point.

The kinds of original documents with a name and address that are among the 39 forms of authorized identification include a statement of government benefits, which would be employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support, or a child tax benefit. It is unquestionable that this option would facilitate the identification process, for example, for seniors who live in a residence. They would be able to use their old age security statements to provide identification at the polls.

Moreover, the list of original documents considered to be suitable identification for the purposes of voting would also include letters from a public curator, a public guardian, or a public trustee. It could be documentation, such as a letter of stay or an admission form, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, a soup kitchen, a students residence, a seniors residence, or a long-term care facility.

Clearly the option of presenting a letter from the responsible authority of a student or seniors residence could be quite useful for seniors who live in a residence or for young first-time voters who may be students living away from home while they attend an educational institution. Students would also have the ability to use correspondence issued by a school, college, or university to provide their identification. All of this would be in addition to the fact that student identification cards and old age security cards are both authorized forms of identification.

I have not yet mentioned the forms of authorized identification that would be of specific benefit to aboriginal Canadians. Specifically, the forms of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer would include certificates of Indian status, also known as status cards. This is in addition to attestations of residence issued by the responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve.

I would also like to emphasize at this point that the Chief Electoral Officer would continue to authorize acceptable forms of identification at the polls. Furthermore, the Chief Electoral Officer would be encouraged to continue his efforts to ensure that the list of authorized identification contains documents to allow those with particular challenges in proving their identity and their residence to be able to do so. In fact, this is the central message of my remarks here today in the House.

The fair elections act would do nothing to detract from the flexibility and adaptability that is inherent in the current system of voter identification under the Canada Elections Act.

The government recognizes that these are key strengths of our electoral system, and as a consequence, the reforms in the fair elections act would serve to enhance those positive elements in the current system while minimizing the very real risks of electoral fraud.

With specific regard to new Canadians, those who are eligible electors would have been resident in Canada for some time prior to obtaining their citizenship and being able to vote in their first election, and so would not face greater challenges than any other Canadian in obtaining one or more of the 39 forms of authorized identification I have just talked about.

Additionally, I would like to note that Elections Canada has produced, in 27 languages in addition to English and French, a document concerning voter identification at the polls, which is intended to make this important information more easily accessible to voters from ethnocultural communities.

The fair elections act would do nothing to impede such important and fundamental advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what identification to bring. In fact, the fair elections act would ensure that Elections Canada focuses its advertising on this crucial information.

The reforms that the fair elections act would bring to the voter identification procedures under the Canada Elections Act are important and much needed measures that would help to ensure that our electoral system operates with the integrity that all Canadians expect and deserve.

In particular, the prohibitions in the fair elections act on vouching and the use of voter information cards as replacements for acceptable identification are designed to protect the vote of Canadians. This certainly includes the specific groups that are mentioned in today's motion: first time voters like youth and new Canadians, aboriginal Canadians, and seniors living in residences.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the fair elections act actually has just the opposite purpose, that of protecting all Canadians' voting rights. With the fair elections act, our government continues to respond to emerging challenges in order to ensure fair elections in which the voice of every voter is counted.

I will bring my remarks to a close today by reiterating my opposition to the motion that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party today concerning the important reforms the fair elections act would bring to Canada's voter identification procedures.

I certainly hope hon. members will join me in opposing this motion and supporting the important changes in the fair elections act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure my colleague is fully aware that whenever the minister lists 39 original documents, the fact of the matter is that an individual needs to have two pieces of ID for the most part, and the biggest problem for many people in the country is showing their address. That is where the voter information card has been very useful, from Elections Canada's perspective.

I will read very briefly from a Toronto Star op-ed piece by Marjaleena Repo, on March 14, entitled “...government's Fair Elections Act: bad news for voters”. She is a senior, and she gives a few examples of how people are not as lucky as she to be able to put together pieces of ID:

A few examples suffice: A utility bill is usually in one person's name, so others in the household cannot use that. People with pre-paid cellphones have no phone bills. Bank/credit card statements are available for those who have them; many Canadians do not have either. Correspondence issued by a school, college and university might not exist, and might not have a current address on it. Statement of government benefits applies only to those who have them. Attestation of Residence to be issued by First Nations to band members are not necessarily available, and on it goes, with the rest.

The fact of the matter is that only something like 13 documents have addresses, and only one or two have the potential to apply to many groups in society. That is why the voter information card has proven to be so useful, with absolutely no strong possibility of it being used for fraud because it is a second piece of ID. It cannot be used on its own.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can acknowledge that it can only be used as a second piece of ID and that he and his party are overstating big-time the potential for fraud with using such cards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of reasons why the assertions the member made in coming to the question would be wrong. First, he indicated he feels the voter information cards should be used as identification and that would not create any errors or potential for fraud. Frankly, as I outlined in my speech, it is very clear there are errors in one in six of these voter information cards. Does he really believe there is not concern about the potential for that to be a problem, when one in six are incorrect or not factual?

That is the first problem with what he said. The second problem is that, when there are 39 acceptable forms of identification, he has indicated that in most cases one would have to provide two. I would argue that in many cases, if one has government issued ID, which has a photo and a name and address, which many Canadians do in fact have, there would only be the need for one. However, there are cases where there is the need for two, and there are many acceptable forms of ID. I have talked about a few of them specific to the groups we talked about today. For example, students could use an attestation of residence that shows residence at the school. They could use a lease document that would indicate where they are living when they are at school. They could use their student information cards, library cards, and many things like that. I could go on and on with a number of acceptable forms of ID if the time were available. I just really believe that the hon. member should take another look at what he has asked.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all in agreement in the House today that we want to eliminate voter fraud. However, the reality is that there is less and less of a turnout. There are fewer people showing up. Therefore, should we not be encouraging and finding ways to have voters eligible to vote? The reality is that the voter cards are being used.

For example, in Quebec we have the medicare card. Most seniors have medicare cards. They do not have drivers licences. Medicare cards do not have ID on it. Therefore, could we not just find a way to perhaps have the medicare card with the voter ID be a way to help voters vote? We have to find a way to help voters vote.

There is no evidence that there has been fraud. The Chief Electoral Officer attested to that, so I am not sure where this is coming from. Some of these voters are actually Conservative voters. Anyone who has ever showed up at a resident home will see that the elderly do not walk around with ID on them. They show up because they have a voter ID card that reminds them that they actually have to vote.

Could the hon. member perhaps find better ways to help a better turnout rather than eliminating ways for people to vote?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I should re-emphasize for the member that, when we talk about the voter information cards, there are errors on one in six of these cards. There is clearly something that needs to be addressed here. What he needs to also be clear on is that there are 39 forms of acceptable identification. He did use specifically the example of seniors. That was what I would have liked to address had I had the chance earlier, so I will do that now.

He used the specific example of seniors. One example we can use is that one of the 39 forms of acceptable identification is a statement of government benefits. Therefore, in the case of a senior, old age security would be an example of that. In the case of a senior living in a seniors' residence or a long-term care facility, there are various forms such as attestation of residence, letter of standing, or admission form. These are all acceptable.

There are many examples of acceptable forms of identification. There are 39 pieces, in fact. I would argue that if one were to take a good look at the list—and I will not read them all now because time is short—it seems to me it would be quite clear that there are quite a few options that are acceptable forms of identification, which I firmly believe would facilitate the ability of all Canadians to be able to vote and to vote knowing we have been able to ensure their vote is safe and there is not the ability for others to cancel their vote through voter fraud.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to something like krafthockeyville.cbc.ca, we can vote for Sylvan Lake and we can vote early and we can vote often, but when it comes to a federal election, that is not the type of thing we do.

I want to relate an issue that actually happened to me. In 2008, when the voter identification cards came to our home, my wife had a card for one polling station and I had a card for a second polling station. It was my first election, so of course it was a situation where I wanted to talk to the electoral officers. I said this kind of issue is a bit of concern as to which side of the bed each of us was actually on.

However, the situation is that there are mistakes. In this case, it would have been a bit of an embarrassment for me if I had taken a camera crew to the wrong polling station when it came to my very first vote as a member of Parliament.

I would ask if the member would perhaps comment on that one in six issue, as far as those voter identification cards are concerned.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted his support for the town of Sylvan Lake in the Kraft Hockeyville contest. I am certainly very supportive. I know it has had some tragic issues with its arena, and I am certainly hopeful that people will vote early and often for them.

However, I agree with him that when it comes to something as important as our federal elections, we have to make sure we are doing all we can to ensure the vote is accurate, fair, and free from voter fraud. I think that is why he has highlighted that it is so important that we look at the voter information cards, as the opposition is calling for them to be used as an acceptable form of identification, and we know that there are errors on one in six. The member has outlined an example in his case. I have heard many other examples like that. One of my colleagues who sits on the procedure and House affairs committee that has examined this bill has indicated that in one election he received three different cards for himself, based upon variations of his middle name, first name, and combinations thereof. I have heard many other examples like that.

Obviously, there is a concern when we have one in six with the wrong information. That is a very high error rate, something we should all be concerned about.

I just reiterate one last time that there are 39 forms of acceptable identification that can be produced at the polls. What is also important is that we provide education through Elections Canada, which focuses on where and when to vote and what identification to bring to the polls to ensure that Canadians know before coming to the polls. I believe we would see fairer elections and better turnouts, as well.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Bill C-23 has been criticized as undemocratic by academics, elections officials, and, more importantly, by many Canadian citizens. Just this morning, on my trip to Ottawa, I had a chance to read The Globe and Mail. It has been editorializing on Bill C-23 for over six days now, sharing more information on this unfair elections act than the government is with Canadians.

I thank The Globe and Mail. In today's piece, it decried the bill, saying to kill this bill for the good of the country. I could not agree more with what the The Globe and Mail's editorial said.

I would like to share some more of what I read today:

The government has touted the bill’s changes to voting rules as needed to prevent voter fraud. That’s a red herring. There is no evidence that vouching, a process the bill eliminates, led to widespread fraud. The government has resorted to defending itself with out of context citations from experts, whose conclusions are the opposite of what the government pretends. Tightening the rules will prevent many eligible Canadians from voting; those affected are mostly not Conservative voters.

Other changes create a giant, partisan loophole in campaign spending laws, to the advantage of the Conservatives. Why? The bill gives incumbent parties in each riding the power to name key election officials, instead of leaving the job to an impartial Elections Canada. Why? Bill C-23 also takes direct aim at Elections Canada in other ways – neutering its ability to conduct public outreach campaigns and encourage voting. Why? It also meddles with Elections Canada’s ability to investigate wrongdoing or communicate the results of investigations. Why?

It is not just me or The Globe and Mail; many Canadians are asking the same questions. Why are the Conservatives trying to stop voters, stop Canadians, from actually participating in our general elections? Time and time again, experts have been saying that Bill C-23 aims to fix problems that are not really there.

The bill is actually exacerbating the real problem with Canada's electoral system, which is low voter engagement. Voter participation is low, and engaging new voters in a time when Canadians are cynical about government is an uphill battle. Why are the Conservatives trying to make voting harder, when we should be making it easier and as accessible as possible? The answer is simple, and very discouraging: it is because the unfair elections bill makes it easier for the Conservatives to win. They want to make it harder for people who do not vote Conservative to vote at all.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians rely on vouching and voter identification cards to prove that they have the right to vote. This is especially true for young people, new Canadians, aboriginal people, and seniors living in residence. Bill C-23 would put an end to vouching practices. Vouching has long been an accepted practice; not everyone has the financial means to secure an ID, and not everyone in Canada is wealthy.

Aboriginal people, university students living away from home, the homeless, and seniors in residence are all groups that are less likely to have eligible ID or mail on hand, thus requiring someone to vouch for them. In the last election, approximately 100,000 people used vouching to exercise their right to vote.

In addition, voter cards will no longer be accepted to confirm identification. The use of voter ID cards, the notice of registration on the electoral list that is sent to voters, benefits those who face challenges in establishing their address when it is time to vote. Examples are youth on campus, seniors, and aboriginal people. Many aboriginal people wait months to get their treaty cards. They may not have access to alternative forms of ID. Elderly couples may need to have a spouse vouch for them, because only one of their names was on the registered mail.

The rate of error is very small when using voter ID cards, and the allowance worked to enfranchise many, so why get rid of it? The only reason I can see is to disenfranchise voters.

My riding of Scarborough—Rouge River is large and diverse. We have a high population of new Canadians who may face some difficulties when they go to the polls next election. For some, the 2015 election will be their first opportunity to vote federally. What a warm welcome to their new home to be told they cannot vote.

We also have the highest youth-to-population ratio in the greater Toronto area in Scarborough—Rouge River. There are approximately 32,000 people between the ages of 18 and 34. The national youth survey conducted by Elections Canada after the 2011 election found that among Canadians aged 18 to 34 who did not vote, 15% said that their decision was influenced by their inability to provide proof of identification, while another 16% indicated that they were influenced by their inability to provide proof of address.

However, members need not take my word for it. Although the Conservatives did not feel the need to consult the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, he had more than enough to say about vouching in testimony that he provided at the procedure and House affairs committee that we know the Conservatives wish they could forget. Luckily for us and for all of Canada, it is on the public record.

The Chief Electoral Officer, when he spoke at the committee, had this to say on vouching:

It has been pointed out that vouching is a complex procedure and that numerous procedural irregularities were found to have been committed at the last general election in connection with vouching. It is critical to understand that, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, the vast majority of these were strictly record-keeping errors by poll workers documenting the vouching process, and not fraud or even irregularities that could compromise an election. There is no evidence tying these errors to ineligible electors being allowed to vote.

That is a fairly clear demonstration that vouching is not leading to election fraud.

When asked publicly about why they would ban vouching and the use of voter information cards, Conservatives say that it is because they are trying to cut down on fraud. However, that does not make sense. We know they are not cracking down on fraud. Elections Canada has been clear that there is no evidence to suggest that vouching or the use of voter information cards has actually led to fraud. There is no evidence to suggest vouching or voter information cards are connected to electoral fraud. There is no evidence to show that this legislation would be justified in ending vouching and ending the use of voter information cards.

The only example of voter fraud using voter ID cards that the Conservatives could give us was, of course, the statement by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville that he had witnessed with his own two eyes that voter fraud was happening using voter ID cards. Of course, as the House knows now, this was not the case, which invites the question of why the member for Mississauga—Streetsville brought it up if he knew it was not true.

Unfortunately, this unfair elections act is not just an attack on voter access but also on education. Bill C-23 would strip the Chief Electoral Officer's power to engage in public education. Under the unfair elections act, the Chief Electoral Officer would be limited to discussing only certain aspects of the electoral process: when, where, and how to vote. That is literally the least amount of information that the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada could give to Canadians. That is all they would be allowed to say. This is absolutely not a way to increase voter participation. This is very much a departure from many western democracies.

Traditionally, bodies that oversee elections have the mandate to educate the public on how to vote. If Elections Canada is not allowed to do the job, then who will? The Conservatives are counting on the probability that nobody will. The Conservatives would rather change the rules of the game than play by the rules. We know that with their majority government, the Conservatives have been writing their own rules, making them up as they go along.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a track record of breaking election laws with their in-and-out scheme, robocalls designed to suppress opposition votes, and rule-breaking overspending by Conservatives ministers, not to mention charges against the Prime Minister's former ethics spokesperson, the MP for Peterborough.

The Conservatives had a chance with Bill C-23 to do the right thing and introduce a bill to crack down on real electoral fraud, but they could not stop themselves from tacking on cynical measures designed to tilt the playing field in their favour and make it harder for some groups of Canadians to vote. As I said before, those include young people, seniors, aboriginal people, and homeless people.

I want to say one last thing. As The Globe and Mail's editorial said this morning, for the good of this country, let us kill this bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague's speech. With regard to people having their identity confirmed by a peer, situations like those my colleague described often occur. These are situations where the person does not have any ID and where members of certain very specific groups have a great deal of difficulty obtaining identification or are less likely to have identification with them. However, the facts have been misinterpreted in such a way that many people think that just anyone can confirm an individual's identity and that the process is very easy.

I would therefore like to hear what my colleague has to say about how complex it is to vouch for someone who does not have a piece of ID with them.