Sunday, March 30, 2014

About Those 39 Pieces of I.D. Pierre Poilivre Keeps Talking About


H/t Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper

To hear Pierre Poilievre speak, one might think that any Canadian who claims that the 'Fair' Elections Act could very well disenfranchise up to 500,000 Canadians in the next election is intellectually challenged. The ubiquitous Harper weasel, both in the House and on television, assures us that all the experts, both domestically and internationally, are dead wrong in all of their criticisms, since the bill will allow 39 pieces of I.D.* to be used at the ballot box, thus rendering vouching and voter information cards quite redundant.

But are his claims of our collective ignorance/stupidity/hysteria valid?

The CBC's Laura Payton did an investigation of the issue, with some very interesting results.

If you look at the list of I.D at the end of this post, you will see the problem. As Peyton points out, Canadians don't just prove their identity to cast a ballot: they have to prove where they live too.

I have placed an asterisk beside those pieces that do provide an address. One of the key problems with many of those forms of identification is that one would have had to have gone to the trouble of requesting such proof well ahead of an election (eg. First Nations attestation of residence, or such attestation as issued by a soup kitchen, shelter, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility); a second problem would be remembering to have it with you when going to the polls. How many would bother to line up a second time after returning to their residence to retrieve the required but forgotten piece?

But most people have a driver's licence, right? Says Payton:

... while Elections Canada says 85 per cent of Canadians have a driver's licence — based on the numbers they get from provincial licensing offices — that penetration drops in urban areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where better public transit systems mean fewer people require cars to get around.

What about things like insurance policies (which you are far less likely to have if you are a renter) or bank statements? Those are fine, says Peyton,

Unless, that is, the documents are delivered by email. [Don't forget we are always being preached to about the environmental virtues of paperless billing.] A printed version of emailed documents won't suffice. Instead, voters would have to go to the bank or the hydro or insurance company — or dig through their paper files at home — to find an original copy. And they'll have to know that before they head to the polling station to cast a ballot on the advance polling day or election day.

Curious as well, isn't it, that a voter information card, which contains one's address, isn't accepted as one of the two proofs required? Does the government believe dark conspiracies are afoot not only to steal the cards, but also people's other pieces of identity as well?

Given all of the criticisms levelled against this bill, criticisms that Poilievre has facilely dismissed as without merit, there is only one conclusion, in my view, to be drawn. Given those who are most likely to be excluded from easy access to the polls (aboriginals, the poor, the homeless, renters, the 'urban elite,' the young and the very old), people who are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, the Fair Elections Act is, unquestionably, legislation aimed solely at achieving voter suppression.

*Driver's licence
Ontario health card
Provincial/territorial ID card in some provinces/territories
Canadian passport
Certificate of Canadian citizenship (citizenship card)
Birth certificate
Certificate of Indian status (status card)
Social insurance number card
Old age security card
Student ID card
Liquor ID card
Hospital/medical clinic card
Credit/debit card
Employee card
Public transportation card
Library card
Canadian Forces ID card
Veterans Affairs Canada health card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec card
CNIB ID card
Firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence
Fishing, trapping or hunting licence
Outdoors or wildlife card/licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee ID card
*Utility bill (telephone, TV, PUC, hydro, gas or water)
*Bank/credit card statement
*Vehicle ownership/insurance
*Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
*Statement of government benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
*Attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government cheque or cheque stub
*Pension plan statement of benefits, contributions or participation
*Residential lease/mortgage statement
*Income/property tax assessment notice
*Insurance policy
*Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
*One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: attestation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits

15 comments:

  1. It seems perfectly clear to me, Lorne that Poilievre is the one who is obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My wife worked the 2011 election. She said many people were rejected because they didn't have proper address verification. Fact is the Cons had tightened restrictions before 2011.

    The most ironic part, is that people were showing up with an Ontario health card (no address) and a voting card with their name and address on it, but the voting card was rejected as proof of residence!

    No doubt Skippy has the same nonsense in his updated "Fair Elections Act."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's very interesting information, Ron. The rules seem to have been inconsistent, as I am pretty certain all my wife and I presented in that election was our voter information cards.

      Delete
    2. I agree, that is interesting. My husband and I both voted in the 2011 election with only our voter information cards as ID.

      Delete
  3. The Harper government does not represent the views of Canadians and will
    try any means by which to stay in power including the infringement of our
    basic democratic rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks increasingly like the only explanation for this kind of unconscionable and undemocratic act, John.

      Delete
  4. Its time for change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well pst time, Darrell, in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do not forget about the rural residents who receive most of our documents and proofs to a post office box...most of my address id has a box number which is not accepted as proof of residence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is an excellent point, one I was quite unaware of Anon. Yet another compelling reason to stop this act.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. He is probably subdividing some of these alleged acceptable pieces, Peter. As the saying goes, the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

      Delete
  8. its funny how election rules are determined by a political party and not Elections Canada? how undemocratic is that!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democracy seems to be the least of these renegades' concerns, Anon.

      Delete