Evidence of meeting #36 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I understand.
An elector has every right to deny authorization to a candidate's representative to examine their ID. In this particular case, I think it's fundamental in what we're hoping to do here. All we've talked about thus far up until this point leads me to believe that everything we want to do when it comes to allowing the individual to vote has been absolutely suppressed. I'm sorry if I used that word again, but actually this is the first time I used that word this evening, quite frankly. That's what it's coming down to.
Maybe it's a point of order, but not once yet have I seen any accommodation for anything that we've tried to earnestly put forward as a decent amendment or a decent way of looking at something which we feel is logistical. We keep doing this end run around each and every provision. This is one of those things. I hope they will consider this as being a legitimate way to restore some faith back into a system that's going to be severely damaged after this vote takes place.
Perhaps Ms. May would like to add to it.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Very quickly, this is just to say that the fundamental point as expressed by the Chief Electoral Officer is that no voter should be denied the right to vote because they did not feel comfortable having their private information reviewed by a candidate or a candidate's representative. My amendment is to the same effect as the Liberal amendment to ensure that does not present a barrier to voting.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Very quickly, this is an insertion after the clause which we just failed to have deleted. Again, it follows the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer where he said that if this provision allowing the candidate or the representative to scrutinize a piece of identification is kept, there needs to be some safeguard in the form of what I'm about to read. I'm moving this amendment:
When a candidate or their representative wishes to examine a piece of identification, the deputy returning officer shall advise the voter that they are not required to present it and that any refusal by the voter shall not affect their right to vote.
This is taken directly from the recommendation of the CEO. I don't have to emphasize why this is there as a safeguard now that we failed to get rid of the provision. I'd like to call a vote, except that you can call it.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
The secret ballot is the right to vote and not have anyone know who you voted for. The idea that you have the right to come in and not show who you are just seems preposterous to me. I'm not sure if the fear is that the scrutineers are going to become stalkers or what the objection is.
The idea that when you participate in something, public duty that you can say, “No, I insist on maintaining my anonymity”.... The whole point of asking to examine the ID is to see whether there is some problem with it. What can I say? I oppose this amendment.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I want to make sure I am perfectly clear on what you said, Mr. Reid.
Let's assume an elector uses their credit card statement as a piece of identification when they vote. How comfortable will they be sharing that information with a stranger who might want to see it, besides the person at the table verifying their identity? Are you saying an elector who refused to show their credit card statement to such a person would be denied the right to vote?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
What we're saying here is that the identification is a public document. If I understand correctly, you're talking about credit cards. Credit cards are not among the documents that are used here. But look, you are willing to actually present it to somebody. You're saying, or Mr. Scott is saying, “Well, only certain people in this poll can see it”. I think the whole point of having the scrutineers there is to make sure everything is being conducted on the up and up.
Am I missing something?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I call the question on NDP-34. It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's defeated.
I guess LIB-20 is not exactly the same, but it is identical to PV-31. They're the same.
Ms. May, would you like to lead this one?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We are. It matches LIB-20, so a vote on one would be for either or all.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much.
This amendment is to stipulate—and it's very similar to the last one—that no electors should be prevented from voting based on their reluctance or refusal to have their ID shown to the candidate or candidate's representative, not to any of the actual poll workers.
It's a privacy issue. We want to make sure that people can vote, and it's based on a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])