Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Scott, Mr. Simms, and then Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Scott, you're first.

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

The first thing it's important for everybody listening to know is that whatever is currently said on the voter information card, it's to ensure that in future it always will be marked until such time as the House changes the law to allow it to get rid of the provision that's now going to be in the law saying that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot authorize. My own memory from what Mr. Reid has just read out is that it's actually not that prominent at all. The idea here is for a prominent message.

I want to re-emphasize that this is harm reduction. There is absolutely no downside to putting this in the legislation. I'm now struggling to understand why it appears that the government may not be voting.... I actually thought I opened up in my motion to withdraw, saying there had not been a single opposition motion voted in favour of by the government. I honestly thought I could have added, “But there is one coming up.”

You have your chance. I'm very serious about this. This is our best effort to acknowledge that we've lost. You have won on getting rid of the voter information card as anything that can be used. We've given good reasons why chaos could result. This is an attempt to make sure that harm, in 2015 at the polls, is reduced. There is no downside to putting this in.

I hope that Mr. Reid's reluctance will not be reflected in the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms.

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

Many members from the government in this committee have said that they want to make sure that we are clear on what the roles and responsibilities are of people involved with elections.

As Mr. Scott pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any angst toward having this on a VIC, so there's not much more to say, other than that this is your chance. Help us to help you. This is your chance to say yes to something you have already acknowledged is a good practice; therefore, let's enshrine it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think the government made our point by virtue of the fact that even they had to go back to research a voter information card, retrieve it, look at it, and discover for themselves that it's on there. The fact is that none of us knew it was on there. We have all had them in our hands at one time or another, we've been talking about them for weeks, and none of us—none of our staff, nobody—knew it was already on there. Doesn't it make a lot of sense that we emphasize, by the passing of this motion, that it be a prominent message? That's the operative word, “prominent”. It's obviously not prominent.

This is harm reduction. We have run up the white flag concerning the voter information card and the way the government is neutralizing its effectiveness. We accept that; we can count. This is, as my colleague Mr. Scott has said, harm reduction.

My colleague also said that there is no downside. The only thing I might add is that from the government perspective there could be a downside, because if that message is displayed prominently, more people may become aware that the card is not ID. Therefore, there is a possibility or greater likelihood that they may take appropriate ID with them or grab their driver's licence and then be able to vote. That's what they don't want. Let's remember that the goal of the government in this exercise is to have fewer and fewer Canadians vote in the election. There is nothing they have done—with the exception of a couple of minor things, but on the significant factors, there is nothing they have done—that is meant to encourage, facilitate, and result in more Canadians voting. It is the opposite.

We see this in the United States. The Republicans are doing the same thing, especially around ID. People are following that issue. It has been challenged all the way to their Supreme Court. This is the same game. It has a little nicer, fuzzier, Canadian look to it, in that it may not be as stark, but make no mistake. The goal is the same: voter suppression—fewer people voting.

The downside for the government of putting this information in prominently is that more people may make sure when they walk out the door that they have some other piece of ID and actually will go to the voting station and will vote. The government is hoping.... This is where we didn't get a chance to get into the minutiae.

We talked about it a bit last night. At 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night, who is paying attention? That wasn't by accident, either. We talked about—

Pardon me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I was paying attention.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, Chair, you've been paying riveting attention, I know, and there's a test after, too.

What we found out last night, again through the fantastic analysis and work of my colleague Professor Scott, is that scrutineers now will be given the clear authority to look at ID. If you want to do so, you can use that power to slow things down. When you're into the game of voter suppression, chaos in the voting station is your friend, long lineups are your friend, people who don't have ID are your friend. That's the name of the game.

What we are saying is that at least on this one, if nothing else, we're either going to make an improvement or leave a stark example, for anybody who is listening and watching, that clearly they don't want people to vote. Otherwise, why on earth would they disagree?

The best argument we've heard so far from the government is that the information is already there. But as I said, none of us knew it was there. You can't find it. The operative word in the motion is “prominent”. The whole idea is that it would be prominent, in the hope that more people will realize that, although it makes no bloody sense, their voter information card is not the ID they need to bring to the voting station—even though common sense as well as facts would dictate that this is the way it should be.

So at the very least, let's let Canadians know the absurdity, so that they know that grabbing that card and heading out the door to vote is not going to do it, even though common sense says it should, especially when they arrive at the voting station and look down and see their name on the voter list, as it is on the card. But if they don't have that other ID, which didn't used to be there before, they won't be able to vote.

This is an attempt to try to salvage something out of this, to prevent some of the chaos, Chair. Again, this is to prominently put on the card that this is not ID for voting. That's all it is. If they vote against that, how could there be any defence to the allegation that this is voter suppression? It has been from the beginning, it continues to be. The only reason they're blinking now is that there's been so much pressure from Canadians, experts, international experts, and to their credit, the media, who have uniformly been opposed.

With all of that, we're down to this moment. If they won't even vote for this, then the last bit of the fig leaf, as ugly as that image is, is gone, and we know, and Canadians know, that this is all about trying to get the fix in for the Conservatives in every way they can and that voter suppression is alive and well in the Government of Canada.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, I won't dwell on this at length, but I just have to say how profoundly offended I am by the literally unbelievable assertions that have been made by my colleague, who I'm sure, upon reflection, will regret that he has said what he has said.

His accusation, if we are to take it seriously, is that the government is seeking to systematically, on the basis of age, race, income level, and perhaps some other factors I couldn't keep track of, deny the vote to Canadians, an assertion that, if true, would mean that literally every member of the government, certainly every person sitting at this table, would be unfit to be in the public square, to serve in public office, frankly to participate in debate.

If that's what we did, if we were the systematic bigots who participated in deliberate, aggressive voter suppression, on that basis, we would be unfit for public life. I would be ashamed to be with anyone who actually acted that way. Frankly, if I were like that, people should be ashamed to be with me.

But of course this is complete fiction. If there were one iota of truth to it, in a country that is as sensitive as Canada and as Canadians are to this kind of grotesquerie, this kind of unacceptable attitude, there would be revolution out there. But there is no revolution out there at all.

Despite the histrionics of his party, indeed we see that on things like the vouching principle, a vast majority of Canadians support our position on this. They would not support, and they never have supported, any measure that hints at or smacks of in the slightest way any of the kind of racist, bigoted actions that he suggests are at the foundation of this government's approach.

Frankly, I'm a little bit ashamed to be sitting opposite him. I never thought I would say that, but listening to this, I'm actually genuinely offended.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I kind of feel the same way.

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

Under the circumstances, Mr. Christopherson, I have to say that's actually a bit of a relief.

With regard to the specific amendment that we're discussing, the fact is that the voter information card contained until recently a message, in all capital letters, that stated that this was not identification. It could not be used for identification at the polls. It was prominent. It met with every iota of the description described by Professor Scott.

I make the humble suggestion that now that we've all indicated that we desire to see something like that, the Chief Electoral Officer will be capable of putting it back on. I hope he will do so. If he doesn't, I would be surprised. The point is that there's no need for a specific provision in the law to make that happen.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Madame Latendresse.

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

Mr. Reid, I am a bit confused. I have here an image of the voter information card, and I cannot find that sentence. I am just trying to understand whether or not it is on the voter information card. As far as I can see, it is not.

It was explained to us that the amendments to the legislation make it impossible for the Chief Electoral Officer to indicate which card cannot be used. So I think it would be really important to approve this amendment, so as to make sure the information on the voter card is accurate.

To your knowledge, does the voter information card currently display that sentence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I can answer from what testimony I've heard that the 2006 card did. I have not seen a copy of it. I've not seen one since, not here in front of me.

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

Based on the image I have before me, the most recent cards no longer display that sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I can't say that for a fact.

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

Okay, but I can confirm that the voter information card currently displays the following sentence:

“Please take this card when you go to vote.”

So if that sentence is on the voter information card, but nothing further is provided to help the voter find the right polling station, and they cannot use the card for identification purposes, I think some issues could arise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott.

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

Yes, I'll be very brief. My understanding of the card at the moment is the same as Madame Latendresse's that in the space that Scott was citing, I don't believe there's any such prominent message. There may be something on the back that, if you search for it, says that this cannot be used for voting.

So on the one hand, Elections Canada does want people to bring this card, because—you know what?—it facilitates processing on election day. If you have it, your name is on the list, then it's easy to find the corresponding name, and then they go to the next step of the ID. The fact is, we're all completely unsure exactly if, where, and how prominent it is. I'll just finish by asking, isn't that a good reason for us to put in the legislation that it should be there and that it should be prominent? Simple as that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I won't go too long but I do have to respond. I can't leave that stand.

My response would be very straight up. You should be ashamed. This entire government should be ashamed of themselves. Flip it around the other way. If an NDP government brought in an election reform bill having not talked to the Chief Electoral Officer, having not talked to the Elections commissioner, having not talked to the Director of Public Prosecutions, when you're moving an important part of government into their area, the Conservatives would have gone out of their minds. They would have been absolutely apoplectic, and my allegation and charge of voter suppression stands, four-square solid.

That's what's going on here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's go to the amendment, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I was attacked personally—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've been giving some freedom—