Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, first off, again, had we had proper consultations and done this in a fair and open way, I think one of the key recommendations we would be looking at in a new bill would be to go back to enumeration. That would eliminate a whole lot of the problems that we have. It worked. It was cumbersome. It cost a bit. I don't know how much more it cost than the cost of maintaining the list that we do now, but it worked. It worked, and in many ways it worked better.

However, we're nowhere near that. Again, we're just defending the best things that we can and trying to amend the most damaging parts of all of this. We missed another opportunity to really improve our system by asking Canadians and experts about the idea of going back to enumeration. I would think that would have been in front of us.

Having said that, I'm also disappointed to hear the government again showing such disrespect to an officer of Parliament. To make the statement that an officer of Parliament did something to give the illusion of some kind of false conclusion.... Can you imagine what would happen if anybody came in here and said something like that about the Prime Minister, or even a minister? People would have gone crazy, if they had—

[An hon. member]

You do it all the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Gentlemen, let's just give your thoughts, and not to each other.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's more fun.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand that for some of you it may be more fun, but for one person in this room, it is not.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Doesn't majority rule?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. The fact is that I considered it totally disrespectful, and I don't think they would have done that to anybody in a uniform or anybody with a fancy title unless it was somebody they didn't like. Then all their saluting, respect, and honour, and “that's who we are” goes by the wayside as they treat someone like the Chief Electoral Officer with such disrespect.

Now, I expect the government to tune out, because they don't care what the Chief Electoral Officer has to say. Otherwise they would have asked him what he thought before they wrote the bill. But here's what he said when we brought him in and forced the government to inject some democracy into this process:

In fact, with an accuracy rate of 90%, the VIC is likely the most accurate and widely available government document. The VIC is based on regular updates from driver's licence bureaus, the Canada Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and various other authoritative sources. During the election period, revision activities at the local level also increase the accuracy of the VIC.

—contrary to what the government suggests—

This likely makes it a more current document than even the driver's licence, which is authorized by law and used by the vast majority of voters.

He also said, “The legislation...”.

Actually, before I do that, I want to pause for a moment. I'll come back to that quote. It's short, Chair.

The government went nuts all through this whole process whenever we called it a voter identity card. They insisted it had to be a voter information card, and yet, all the evidence we had, Chair, all the evidence, including the quote I just gave from someone who is an officer of Parliament....

Unless one of the government members wants to say he's lying, I'm prepared to accept as a fact that it has 90% accuracy. It's more accurate than any individual government document. Why is that? Because the voter information card is derived from all the databases. Any one of your precious 39 pieces of ID is not as good as the voter information card, which has access to all those government databases; hence the position of the Chief Electoral Officer that the voter information card is 90% accurate and likely the most accurate and widely available government document.

Again, if the government were really interested in having more people vote to increase the number of voters, then they would make it easier by accepting the voter information card—and this is not one, but I just made this up to hold something. It's already mailed out. It has the address. People know they should get the change made if they want to vote, and they do. That's why Mr. Mayrand said that the revised list is even more accurate.

I'll continue with Mr. Mayrand's quotation. It is short, Chair:

The legislation authorizes Elections Canada to establish the list of acceptable forms of identification. Following the first election where the new identification rules were in place, we did a test and we used the voter information card in some very specific places, such as reserves, shelters, long-term care facilities and student residences.

Interestingly, that sentence was some of the most compelling testimony we heard from individuals and organizations representing Canadians in terms of where they live.

To continue quoting the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada:

Evaluations showed that almost 68% of those people used the voter information cards. We found no indication of fraud or other offences, and people told us—including the administrators of shelters and long-term care facilities—that the cards made voting easier.

That's the last thing this government wants to hear, because their whole goal is to suppress that vote, to have as few Canadians as possible go out and vote so that their targeted system will give them another majority.

The last sentence in the quote is, “Voters and administrators appreciated it.” I'm not aware...well we had one, I'll give you that, but I think that was on vouching, not the voter information card per se, but I give the government one. There was no one else who came in and supported the government's position on voter information cards.

Make no mistake. Having the voter information card become a voter identification card is one, the most accurate, two, the easiest to use, and three, would likely lead to more Canadians voting. So why doesn't this bill do that? The answer is that they want fewer Canadians to vote. They have such a highly technical laser beam system that they know that if they can just keep everybody...they can ram this through. It's not unlike what they're doing in the United States, the Republicans and their ID laws that are being challenged all the way to their Supreme Court. That's where all this is coming from. That's why, if anybody wonders why the government's defying political gravity doing something that nobody supports, it's because it does meet their partisan objective.

My last point is this, Chair. People are going to walk in on election day. They're going to walk into their home and they're going to make sure that they grab their voter identification card. There's going to be a whole lot of people, especially if it's a nice day and voting is within a couple of blocks. They're going to grab the card and they're going to head out, and they're going to go and vote. They're going to show up at the voting station and they're going to say. “Here's my voter information card, and oh yes, there's my name on the list right there so I'm all set to vote”, and they're not going to be allowed to vote unless they have ID. The government is going to say, “Well, all they have to do is go back home, which is two blocks away, and come back.” True, but we all know human nature. We know how hard it is to get people to go out and vote once, never mind go back to the polling station again if they've been refused. They're going to be so frustrated standing there saying, “Wait a minute. I have a card from Elections Canada that has my name and it's accurate. It has my address and it's accurate, and I'm standing here in the voting station where I should be. I can see my name on the list and you're telling me I can't vote.”

Make no mistake. Voter suppression...is any one of these going to tip the election and hand them a frauded election? No, but every one of these changes incrementally has the effect of having just a little bit less turnout across the country, and that's what they want. That's what the American Republicans want, and that's what the Canadian Conservative Party wants. That's why this is here, notwithstanding every expert saying that the best thing to do to improve our election system, and to increase the opportunity and the likelihood that people will vote is to turn the voter information card into a voter identification card and let people vote with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Richards next and then Mr. Reid, but I would like to vote on this during my lifetime.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I will try to keep it very brief, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to make a few points. I don't think I need to go over.... Mr. Reid covered it quite well. When we talk about the accuracy of the voter information card to be used as identification, there are errors with one in six or more of the cards. We don't have to go over that ground again. That's quite clear, despite whatever the opposition wants to try to claim about its accuracy. That certainly is a troublesome rate of error, and one which I think does create some concern.

The other point I'd like to go over...I won't conjure up the spectre of alien abductions again, as my colleague Mr. Reid did, but it certainly was a good, entertaining example. When he was discussing that, he was alluding to the fact that he was finding it difficult, much as I was, to imagine as we went through the hearings, someone who would not be able to provide the identification required. I noted that throughout the hearings we never heard from a single witness who had indicated that they or anyone they knew would not have been able to vote under the provisions in this bill.

A lot of hypothetical examples were given, but never any concrete examples. The opposition likes to talk a lot about concrete examples. We never heard a single concrete example of a voter who would not have been able to vote, who could not have the ID required. I find it hard to imagine. Having said that, obviously we have just made an amendment here to allow someone to co-sign an oath as to their residence. That I could see as quite a reasonable amendment.

In terms of this card, I have just stated that outside of hypothetical examples, we did not hear from anyone who would have had trouble to produce the ID required, especially now that they can co-sign an oath to attest to their residence.

Furthermore, all the hypothetical examples that were given wouldn't apply to the voter information card because it's mailed to their last known address. We heard an example of a homeless person who obviously wouldn't have any mail. Certainly voter information cards wouldn't apply in that case. The student who is at an educational institution away from their parents' home, yet receives all their mail at their parents' home, but is choosing to vote at the poll where they're going to school, their voter information card would go there. I don't see how it would solve the issue, if one existed, which we certainly didn't establish. I've already identified the accuracy rate concerns.

As to some of the other claims of the opposition that indicated we should be prepared for all these people to show up at the polls next election with nothing but their voter information card, I would also point out that one of the other provisions in Bill C-23 requires Elections Canada to better advertise the logistics of voting. That obviously includes things like what identification to bring. Many witnesses came before this committee who indicated they were not aware of what they needed to bring in order to vote.They were quite surprised to learn about some of the possibilities available to them. That obviously indicates a better job needs to be done. That is something this bill requires, something we would expect Elections Canada to undertake, and therefore people would be aware of exactly what would be required to vote. I think that indicates the voter information card need not be used as a piece of identification, and Bill C-23, including the amendment we've just made, would facilitate every voter who wishes to vote to be able to vote in our elections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In addition to pointing out the statistical problems with the voter information card as a form of identification, I'll just point out again two stories from my own personal experience.

The first was when I received three voter information cards when I was living in a house on my own. One was to Scott Reid, one to Jeffrey Reid, and one to Scott Jeffrey Reid. That indicates a problem with the voters list.

As a second example, when my ex-wife and I were married—that's a while ago because we split up a year ago—we received two voter cards, one for her and one for me, telling us to vote in two different constituencies. That happened because of the way Elections Canada treated our address as the way she had written it down as being at R.R. 1, Carleton Place, in one riding. The way I had written the address down was the street address of Mississippi Mills, Ontario, which is in a different riding. It just happens that the house is close to the riding boundary.

The example Mr. Christopherson offers is the person taking the card and going to vote as they are legally permitted. One of us would have been voting illegally by following the advice on the card. The card was just wrong.

This is all encapsulated in that 14% error rate I mentioned as to people's addresses. This is a pretty significant point.

I also mentioned the example of an assistant I have who received a voter information card addressed to somebody else in his house. He took it down to the polling station simply as a way of finding his way to the polling station. Presumably, the person living at that address ought to go to this place, but the card was issued on the assumption that the previous resident still lived there, etc., etc.

These examples are so widespread that the claim that is made that this is somehow Canada's most accurate piece of ID is either wrong or we have no ID in this country that's actually accurate. It's either one or the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms.

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

I have a quick question, if I may, for Mr. Richards.

He talked about advertising and who, what, when, and that business. If Elections Canada were to advertise to Canadians that they are no longer allowed to use a VIC, is that okay?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

The provision obviously indicates that they are to indicate to them what they should bring in order to vote, so I would think that what they should probably do is try to focus their efforts on ensuring that people know the information they need in order to vote, which would be, “Here is what you should bring”.

I think that's what they should try to focus on. That's the best I can answer that question. I think they should focus on the positives of what they should bring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I am calling the question on NDP-27.

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

A recorded vote.

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We now move to NDP-28.

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

I'll move this, Mr. Chair.

I will be as brief as I can. This is a bit of an offer...well, no, it's a request to the government.

We now have the current provision in the act where you can vote with a single piece of government issued ID that has a photo, name, and address. You can vote with two pieces of ID that collectively show your name and address. You can now vote with this new vouching ID plus vouching of address. That would have been the sort of trilogy we had before with the new form of vouching different from before.

This is a suggestion to add a fourth possibility. I'll tell you why I'm suggesting it, but I'll read it first. That would be:

a written declaration made and signed by the elector as to his or her address and one piece of identification of a type authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer—other than a notice of confirmation of registration sent under section 95 or 102, which establishes the elector's name.

In English, a written declaration would be in place of, or an option ahead of—I'm going to think of it as ahead of—vouching of address and the piece of ID would be as it existed in the government's G-5 or whatever that was—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Government 5.

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

Government 5, G-5, but I have of course excluded the voter information card as being one of the pieces of ID for two reasons. One, it's primarily valuable for address anyway and even if we had won the earlier vote, this exclusion would still have made sense. At the same time it now is necessary, because we're not restoring the voter information card.

The reason I would ask the government to consider this is that it still involves.... This will link up with the same punitive provision as the government's oath. It's the same in that swearing an oath can still be punished, but it's much cleaner than vouching and it almost certainly will enfranchise a lot more people and, boy, will it help at the polling stations because you're not having double, two people having each to sign things. You're not having all of the more cumbersome side of that, and people who cannot find another person to vouch in their polling division—and keep in mind it has to be in your polling division which narrows the range a bit—can simply swear the declaration. It goes into the record and it can be tracked down and if in any sense you misrepresent yourself, you're subject to the same penalties as would be the case under the partial vouching or vouching by address that the government just added.

Frankly, I don't want to say anything more. I just think that this is very similar to what exists in some other jurisdictions. Again, it goes back to a degree of trust in the voter who has to swear to their address, subject to penalties, and if it turns out that an audit is done and it's found that they mis-swore an oath, they could be prosecuted.

I'd be open to any amendments that would add anything along the lines of the person must be told that audits are done on these declarations and that they do risk actually being prosecuted. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

NDP-28 is so moved. Seeing no speakers I'll—

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

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll move on to NDP-29.

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

I will move this, Mr. Chair, and ask for it to be voted on.

This is another method of returning the VIC, and given that we know what the outcome is, and we've had a strong debate on that, I don't see any further point other than I'd like a formal vote on this, a recorded vote please.