Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 10th, 2014

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That means information in all data banks is open to abuse.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's correct.

So what we should be looking at are ways in which we can change and inform and improve the Canada elections data bank, would you not agree with that?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That would be a big responsibility for Elections Canada and I'm sure they do undertake it to the best of their ability, but it's a continuous responsibility they need to pay attention to.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I still get mail for Lisa Crawford who you would know is a Liberal staffer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely.

So when I think of those VIC cards, let's improve the data bank, try to look at ways in which maybe we can incorporate them, as it's been pointed out. You can't just walk in, say here's the VIC card, let me vote. You have to also provide other forms of identification.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's a big improvement after 2006.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Would you think that maybe instead of 39 pieces of qualifying ID, why not have 40 and just use it with the consideration that Elections Canada needs to improve the quality of that particular data bank?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, back in 2006 when we testified at PROC with the various members of the committee and so on, one of the things that was pointed out was the Quebec system. I don't know if the Quebec system has changed but they had a system at that time of providing various forms of ID. There were a lot of people who sat in those chairs who said that we should be looking at what Quebec does. It's part of the same thing you're talking about in making sure that however somebody winds up getting identified, that you take away every opportunity you possibly can of someone being misidentified intentionally or accidentally as a voter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I must say, Mr. Hawn, I'm kind of in favour of you taking membership on this particular committee. I could use some support in some of the things you're saying.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, I hope that I haven't been too supportive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

When you look at it, at the end of the day, I believe, there is a need to see amendments brought forward to improve the legislation.

One of the ideas was why not allow individuals to give an affidavit? So if I go to a place and sign my name off, swear my name off on an affidavit that I live at this particular address and maybe have one piece of ID, I should be able to vote. Do you think the committee should be open to something like that?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Affidavits are part of the system now, and have been for as long as I've known. Affidavits in our experience, certainly in 2006 and we suspect in 2004, were abused. No system is perfect. That can be part of a broader system. There are a whole lot of things that have a role to play.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux. We'll move on to a four-minute round. Mr. Lukiwski, you're starting that off, is that correct?

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

Yes, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you Mr. Hawn.

Just to follow up a little bit on what Kevin was saying, one of the provisions of the elections act, Bill C-23, is to oblige Elections Canada to advertise and communicate more aggressively with voters as to the hows of voting, as well as the wheres and whens. “How” meaning what kind of ID to present, which would eliminate a lot of the problems with the VICs, but I would also point out that the only true way to eliminate voter fraud—because of the problems everyone has with databases and I fully agree with that—is to produce proper identification, not through vouching, not through voter information cards, but through proper identification.

As an example, someone told me just a day or so ago that if you wanted to renew your Ontario health card now—do you know the process you have to go through? You have to produce three pieces of ID to get your Ontario health card. Every single societal privilege or right that we seem to have, except for voting, requires one to produce proper identification. That's just a normal function of who we are and the times in which we live.

I would just suggest that, getting back to the root of this whole discussion, whether or not vouching should be eliminated, or whether VICs should be allowed.... We have roughly 18 months or slightly less before the next election. If people were educated now as to the kinds of identification that are required, and the options to produce identification that are available, I think a lot of the problems that we see, if there have been problems, would be eliminated. I'd just like to see if you have any comments on that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I agree totally. We are giving it a lot of publicity through this committee and across the country and so on. Whether it's 39 or 45 or whatever the number is, people know this is coming. I'm sorry, there's virtually no excuse for anybody to not have one or more of those forms of ID. I just don't personally buy that.

If you go, again folks, back in 2006, I'm referring to Quebec, I'm not sure what the specific rules were but a lot of people there were referring to what went on in Quebec. There were a bunch of different forms of ID that were allowed in 2006. In the rest of Canada, you showed up with a VIC card, and that was it. Quebec was taking it, I think, a little more advanced, a little bit more seriously at that time.

Going down the road, the surest way perhaps—probably we can never get there—is biometrics, retinal scans, fingerprints, whatever. That's a little bit more complicated, obviously, in establishing that system, but I agree, fundamentally, as I said in my comment, I would rather have an election with certainty of the vote than an election where we have no idea how many people voted illegitimately.

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

How much time, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 45 seconds.

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

Quick comment; you mentioned that you encountered, it seemed to be, some serious attempts at fraud in the 2004 and 2006 elections. I would suggest that probably where fraud is more likely to occur is in those ridings where everyone knows that it's going to be close.

I would assume back in 2004 and 2006 you had your own polling and everyone else in opposition camps had done their polling and knew that it was going to be a tight election. That's where I think that fraud, if it's going to occur, would occur, at least attempted fraud to try to change the outcome of an election in an area or a riding where they knew it was going to be tight. I'd just like a quick comment from you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That goes again back to my comment. I would never accuse my Liberal opponent in 2004 and 2006 of deliberately doing that, but in a tight race supporters and volunteers are very enthusiastic and sometimes they are more enthusiastic than the law would normally allow. That will happen in tight races.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much. We'll go to Mr. Christopherson. You're sharing a bit, I think.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Hopefully I will. I do tend to go on. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you both very much. Mr. Casey, good to see you again. Always good to see a former colleague. We served together.

Mr. Hawn, I really wasn't going to comment too much, simply because so far the only parade of people the government can bring in here to allege the argument that there's so much potential fraud are card-carrying Conservatives—and a caucus colleague, no less.

I don't know how much people are going to put on that, not that they're questioning you. I'm not questioning your integrity, sir, at all, but I am pointing out that from 30,000 feet, the best this government could do was to bring in not just another card-carrying Conservative—not just another one—but an actual caucus member who is going to come in and make an argument that none of the experts that have come forward can verify and support. I find that interesting.

In listening to your testimony, sir, I would just mention that when you say you don't personally buy it that people don't have the ID, with the greatest of respect, I urge you to review the testimony of people who have been in here representing homeless Canadians and aboriginal Canadians. All of these people are just as entitled to their vote as you and I are, and they would argue very strongly that there are Canadians in such circumstances that they don't have this kind of ID, and they will not be able to vote. One of the requests we've had from people coming in is, “Please, listen to us. We're telling you that there are fellow Canadians who are not going to be able to vote”.

Could there be anything more important than that as we're reviewing this bill? I urge you to review that testimony and perhaps rethink the argument that if you don't have the ID that we all carry here every day, you are not entitled to vote. I urge you to review that, because that's not the testimony we are getting.

I don't have a lot of time. I want to mention too that one of the things that have not been disputed—at least I haven't heard the testimony—is that enumeration is a bad idea. In fact, I've heard all kinds of people make the argument that enumeration works, and I don't know why that's not on the table.

That is my segue to my question for you, Mr. Casey. I jotted down some of your comments. You said this needs more focus; this needs some analysis; bring in the experts to ask them about the issues you have raised. But I need to point out to you that this process doesn't allow that. There is not enough time for us to bring in those experts. Your comments are probably the only focus we're going to get, yet, by rights, we should be holding separate hearings on that clause alone, getting all the experts in to understand why there is that circumstance and what changes we should be making to understand unintended consequences, which this government has no interest in pursuing.

That is what should be happening, but, sir, this process is not allowing that. Maybe you can give us your thoughts on the process that should be in place to allow you to raise this issue and to allow us to dig into the other issues.

[Bill Casey]

The thing that comes to my mind is that when I go on the Internet, I can see where Elections Canada brought to the attention of the government—to all governments since 1993—in two written reports that this is the most unfair aspect of Elections Canada, and it has not been addressed. I wonder if the drafters of this bill, the fair elections act, looked at those recommendations and didn't regard them or didn't look at them. Elections Canada has made these recommendations twice and has called them draconian—it has called its own rules draconian—and I repeat that word because it is very effective. There is something wrong in the process when Elections Canada makes those recommendations twice. To me, it's the most obviously unfair aspect of Elections Canada.

I often think they should change the name of the act if they're not going to make that fair. I don't think you can call it the fair elections act if you allow this unfairness to remain.

Your question is about the process. I think there is something lacking in the process if Elections Canada criticizes its own regulations and nothing is done about it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You need to know that the only people who have had input into this are people who carry a Conservative membership card. No other Canadian has had input into this bill except people who carry a Conservative membership card.

My apologies, Chair.