Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'We are all proud to share basic principles'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, February 14, 2011 11:42am - 91 Comments

Conservative backbencher Steven Blaney—with the public support of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney—has introduced a bill that would ban so-called “veiled voters.”

Blaney said it’s not an issue of religion. ”I think we are all proud to live in this country,” he said. “We are all proud to share basic principles… one of those basic principles is transparency through our democratic process.”

The government side has known since 2007—after some schooling from commissioner Marc Mayrand—that the current electoral law does not include an absolute demand on visual identification before voting. In 2009, the government abandoned plans to change that. At that time, Elections Canada noted that the apparent problem had not resulted in any apparent issues during the 2008 general election.

“The important thing to remember is that there were really no issues raised in the last general election in that regard. Zero. Zilch. Nothing across the board,” said Enright. ”There were no reported incidents of electors attempting to vote with their face covered at the last election. There was nothing, not even a blip.”

Asked about the matter last week in a scrum, the NDP’s Joe Comartin noted another incongruity in this debate.

We have lots of people who vote – many more than people who wear the veil, many, many more people, thousands more people who vote by mail, people who are outside the country, in particular.  We don’t look at their faces.

Indeed, as David Akin points out, more than 250,000 Canadians voted by mail in 2008

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Another useless 'govt solution' in pursuit of a non-existent problem.

    • http://twitter.com/key2thecup @key2thecup

      Couldnt agree more, and while we're at it lets inflame the public for no reason.

    • Jan

      This is the second time the government has done this – hard to not feel they're intent is to raise anti-Muslim sentiment.

      • brooster2

        But it's sort of akin to the Cons taking up the cause of that hypothetical guy who might go to jail for refusing to disclose in the long form census how many toilets he has.

        It goes into the "Yabbut, It Could Happen" file and our government is only being, you know, proactive. Just in case. Because our government defends our democratic processes against all threats. Not the real ones, mind you…just the ones that are, you know…veiled.

        • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

          Or unreported.

      • Healthcare Insider

        I am a conservative. I do not believe that Muslim woman should have to reveal their faces to vote. However, after what has happened with the Kirpan in Quebec, I am beginning to think that I am amongst the minority in this country. Just take a look at the online voting here regarding that subject. Tolerance is taking a backseat to paranoia. People compare everything to what is the norm for airport security screening. Mr. Kenny's announcement will likely meet with relief – no suicide bombers at the voting stations.

    • gar

      This has nothing to do with anti anything.this is a common sense law and does not stop any religion from covering their faces.No one should be allowed to vote in this country without showing ID and revealing their face to prove it.If you have ever worked in a polling booth on election day this is a problem. One law for all Canadians.

      • tedbetts

        Of course it is anti-muslim.

        If it was really about anything else, then the bill would require all people to reveal their faces and identification when voting. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians vote without ever showing ID and revealing their face to prove it.

        We should indeed have one law for all Canadians.

        Not a law that targets muslims like this one.

      • George

        You don't have to show your face now… and per Elections Canada, veiled voting did not happen ONCE in the 2008 Federal Election…so, to say "if you have ever worked in a polling booth on election day this is a problem" is a complete fabrication.

        GAR – have you EVER worked at a polling booth? If you did, your boss says this was not an issue. You're either lying about this being an issue, or you didn't report the issue to your superiors, making you negligent in your work.

        • MostlyCivil

          "if you have ever worked in a polling booth on election day this is a problem'

          I have. In Scarborough. The polling station was in a school next to a mosque. It's not a problem.

          What an interesting, fictional world you must live in.

      • Jan

        Have you ever worked in a polling booth – because there is no requirement for photo id.

  • Mike T.

    I believe Kenny used the word "reasonable" to describe the bill. In this wording, he was mistaken.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable on it's face to ask that voters be visually identified before voting, so I can certainly conceive of a reasonable bill that would do so, with reasonable accommodations made for matters of faith (i.e. letting veiled Muslim women show their faces privately to female poll workers to establish their identity).

      Then again, the last time the Tories tried to deal with this "issue" they insisted that their legislation would stop people from voting without being visually identified despite the fact that anyone with a grade three level of reading comprehension could see that their bill as worded did NO SUCH THING, so who knows what they've got for us this time!

      • Mike T.

        I disagree. We've done it for decades without the extra hassle of needing picture ID.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying we SHOULD do this, and certainly not that we MUST do this, or that it's at all important to do this, I just don't necessarily think it would be UNREASONABLE to do this (or at least I don't yet have enough information to come to the conclusion that it definitely would be). I do worry about anything that tends to place any additional barrier to voting in front of the voter, so I may be easily persuaded that this is a bad idea, but I don't think it's an unreasonable idea on its face. Even if it drove down turnout there's still a logical argument to be made that it's important to ensure that the people voting in our elections are legitimate voters, and the question becomes where we draw the line between "ease of voting" and (relative) "certitude regarding the legitimacy of those votes".

          One thing I'd really like to know before the bill is voted on is how many Canadians of voting age don't have a piece of photo ID. If we're going to do this we're going to need a BIG push to get a lot of Canadians some form of usable photo ID, and as others have pointed out, I'd personally prefer that citizens not be forced to pay for such a piece of ID out of pocket before being allowed to exercise their right to vote!!!

          • Mike T.

            I guess we have a different threshold for what constitutes unreasonable. I think putting all of that into place just to add legitimacy to an anti-veiled voting bill is the very picture of unreasonableness!

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Actually, I think we largely agree on that point, I think I'm just more open to persuasion that a bill could be crafted that I wouldn't find to be unreasonable.

  • tobyornotoby

    Good news. As their party popularity grows towards the prospect of a majority the Reform Alliance base is crawling out of the cave to remind voters why the Conservatives can't be trusted with a majority.

    • Ron

      and why is that? because they care about electoral fraud? What are you suggesting?

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        He might be suggesting that they don't actually care about electoral fraud. If one cared about electoral fraud, aren't there about a million things one would change before bothering to change this? Have more than a dozen people in the history of Canadian elections even ATTEMPTED to vote with their face covered?

      • Jan

        What he is suggesting Ron, is that when the Cons get close to a majority they traditionally self-defeat. You can pretty much count on it. From Randy White talking about re-criminalizing homosexuality to Cheryl Gallant telling Atlantic fishermen to arrange their own rescue, this is how they roll. I like to think of it as a safety feature.

  • janet

    I am a red Liberal and have generations of singular voters in my heirs.

    And I agree with this law.

    This a rare occasion to be proactive. Why wait until it becomes a problem to address it?

    Now if this govm’t could be proactive on other more pressing issues, we’d all be better for it.

    • Mike T.

      Even if you apply it evenly so it's a "picture ID" law rather than an "anti-muslim veil" law, placing extra hurdles to voting, an activity far too few Canadians take place in anyways, most likely does more harm than good. Especially the steps you'd need for Canadian voters in foreign countries (probably an affidavit signed in that foreign country prepared at time of voting and kept on file for the benefit of EC).

      • Ron

        If such a small hurdle stops someone from voting, I'm in favour of their apathy.

        Voting should be done by those who have actually invested the time to figure out how they want their constituency to be led. Voting is not for the lazy. I don't care if we get to historical lows in turn-out, if the quality of the turn-out is reasonable.

        • Mike T.

          If there's one thing the internet has taught me, it's that the lazy vote is no worse than the involved vote.

        • Douglass

          Voting is for the lazy. It is also for the ignorant, the intelligent, and the middle of the road average Canadian. You do not get to pick and choose whose voice matters. When the government is trying to do so, one should be worried.

        • NaN

          It's not your decision how and why other people vote, nor which barriers are "good" ones. Your opinion is your opinion, and you get one vote to express it.

          Personally I think that system is a relic of a time when communication was much harder, but it makes little sense to advance an undemocratic argument for a democratic institution. If you want rule by an educated elite over an unwashed mass, then simply argue for that.

          • Thwim

            I'd like to, but there's more of them than me, so I keep getting voted down. :)

      • Douglass

        I agree whole heartedly. We should not be setting up more road blocks to keep people from voting. Especially within such marginalized segments of our society.

  • Douglass

    Nice curve ball to the conversation. I would argue that fearmongering on either side of this debate is not warranted. Your doing your side of the argument a disservice and frankly adding fuel to those who discriminate against Muslims.

    • sdfsdf

      Once again, your response is that of a typical canadian in denial, or in out right disregard for the murders their men carried out in and around kandahar. You place ZERO, i repeat, ZERO value for the blood of afghans, but bemoan a canadian soldier who dies when his afghan victims actually fight back. This twisted, unbelievably twisted world view is exactly why the west is so hated (not only by Muslims).

      • lgarvin

        Do you live here in "the West"?

    • sdfsdf

      Believe me, i cannot add fuel to this. Those who want to discriminate Muslims will do so no matter what, this is a foregone conclusion. There has always been in the west, a segment of the population that is more than happy to hate anyone and attack them at any given time. In the 40s it was the japanese, in the 50s the koreans, in the 60s the vietnemese, in the 70s the iranis, in the 80s the lybians, in the 90s the iraqies, in the 2000s ALL MUSLIMS. You are a people who commit one genocide after the other, and then have a brief moment of self reflection afterward where you broadcast a few after school specials owning up to your crimes. But while you are in the frenzy of hatred, you are a people who are determined to commit atrocities first, then think later. The history of the natives, the africans, the irish, and even your own children (who were used in coal mines in the early 20th and late 90th century) backs up my claims. It is psychotic to expect any community to not avenge their dead children. Try to put yourself in their shoes (which really, really should not be hard).

      • Rasta

        You're right. The late 90th century was a tough time for coal miners. Let's hope that is never repeated.

        • sdfsdf

          OBVIOUSLY, I meant 19th century. Let's not trivialize the discussion by pointing out typos…seriously.

  • chrimartel

    I am sure we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Photographic identification is a good policy to reduce risks of fraud and I support this as an absolute requirement.
    On the other hand, I am sure there is some way to certify the very small amount of people who cannot have a photo id for a genuine reason (veil or mail).

    This is another file where pols put forward a legislation more to get votes than anything.

    • Mike T.

      How are overseas voters to be verified? Why are mail voters exempt from your requirements? Wouldn't anyone intent on fraud merely switch to mail voting?

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I'm certainly thinking about voting by mail in the next federal election, if only so I can say that I did the next time this topic comes up!

        • Mike T.

          I'm going to do it AND I'M GOING TO COVER MY FACE WHILE I DO IT!!!!

  • Mike T.

    What's your alternative?

    ***

    Wish I knew. Too bad the gov't won take bids to find out!

  • Mike T.

    This has gotta be from the CPC war room!

    • sdfsdf

      No it's not. This is a frustrated Muslim who sees what his happening with his people globally. Again you have proven my point. CANADIANS MURDERED PEOPLE IN KANDAHAR!!!!!!!!!! Do you not realize how abhorring that crime is?

      • Mike T.

        suuuuure, Kenney…..

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    they don't consider Canadians abroad to be 'real' Canadians

    Surely they don't include the troops in that assessment!

  • sdfsdf

    "transparency through our democratic process." As transparent as the G20 talks in Toronto, which were conducted behind closed doors, were veiled by 10,000 cops, 1000 arrests, and hundreds of injuries?

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I think it's important to determine if the intent of this bill is to ensure the visual identification of citizens before allowing them to vote, or to force Muslim women to remove their veils. 'Cause the last time the Tories tried to legislate in this area they didn't even bother to include a requirement that voters show photo id, so what am I supposed to believe is the point in making people show their faces if you're not going to compare their face to an ID with a picture on it?

    I also can't conceive of how we can make this change and keep mail-in voting, unless voters abroad will be required to present themselves at an embassy or consulate to have their identity confirmed and their ballot certified before mailing it in. It makes precious little sense to me to require that voters present at a real-world voting booth uncover their faces while hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes are considered perfectly legitimate even though the voter could have had their face covered and been naked and standing on their head when they filled out the ballot in their own living room.

  • brooster2

    Even if Canadians abroad came home expressly to vote, they shouldn't be allowed, because they'd be "just visiting".

    • Mike T.

      They didn't come back to vote for you!

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    That would be the F35's that Martin started the process for?

    Technically, Canada joined the JSF development program under CHRETIEN not Martin. If you're going to disingenuously pretend that the Liberals committed us to purchasing the F-35 as our replacement for the F-18 years before the F-35 had even had its first test flight (which happened in 2006, when STEPHEN HARPER was Prime Minister) at least blame the right Liberal PM!

    If one believes that the Liberals really committed us to purchasing the F-35 for our pilots before the first F-35 had even rolled off the assembly line (hint: they didn't!) then that's Prime Minister Chretien's fault, not Paul Martin's.

    • Thwim

      Personally, I fully subscribe to the notion of piling as much blame on Chretien as possible.

      Y'think there's any way we could tie him to swine flu?

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I think we can now safely blame Chretien for most of the things that the Harper government does. After all, how frequently do you hear from Tories these days that "It's all right that we did X, look, Chretien used to do X all the time!!!".

  • brooster2

    In other words, red meat for the Cons' lunatic fringe?

  • Leo

    Hmmmm….sdfsdf thinks Afganistan is OK?

    'Shaming' her in-laws costs 19 year old her nose, ears

    The United Nations estimates that nearly 90 percent of Afghanistan's women suffer from some sort of domestic abuse. This in a country where there are only about eight women's shelters to provide sanctuary from the cruelty they face. And all of the eight are privately run.
    http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/18/shami…

    • JamesHalifax

      Leo wrote:
      "The United Nations estimates that nearly 90 percent of Afghanistan's women suffer from some sort of domestic abuse. "

      Hmmm….sounds like your average trailer park in Kentucky.

  • Mike T.

    CPC plant,you mean.

    • JamesHalifax

      Whoever he/she (hi emily) is………

      It doesn't sound legite.

      Not enough alluha ackhbars mentioned.

      • MostlyCivil

        It's like a proxy war going on here…except we have one CPC plant attacking another. It's really kind of fun to watch. Coming next week?

        Biff Vs Chet, in a one-man showdown…

  • brooster2

    Does this whole issue not become irrelevant when we inevitably move to the digital ballot box and everyone votes remotely? Let's just move on and get to that point sooner.

  • Dave

    Next PMB from Steve Blaney: forcing the 50,000 Canadian Forces electors to vote with their faces.

  • sanpan

    James I am a white female Canadian born NDP voter and your insane comment says to me that you are a plant, and not Avery smart one at that. As far as sdfsdf. Is concerned he has some definate anger issues and is scary. But I do agree that west needs to let other countries govern themselves. Our democratic/capitalist society is not for us to choose for others, and let's be clear it is really all about capitalism. Not every one believes the rich should keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer

  • George

    Hey Ron – without actually having a bidding process, it's impossible to know.

    Even if the F35 is the BEST jet (and it very well could be), why are we buying 65 of them? Why not 45? Why not 100? Why do our unit prices for these jets cost most than the Americans, if we're all buying them "together"?

    I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    An Act to Offend a Very Small Group of Voters for No Good Reason

    What's even funnier is I'm not sure they realize who they're offending! It's certainly not Muslim women who wear veils as I'm unaware of any veil-wearing Muslim woman ever even attempting to vote with her face covered. I'm also almost certain that no Muslim woman has ever complained about not being able to, or even suggested that veiled Muslim women shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

    • MostlyCivil

      How about "An Act to Pacify and Monetize the Hard-Right Faction into a Fundraising Opportunity Since We Can't Re-introduce Gun Registry Legislation Until Next Session?"

  • BCer in Mtl

    I am curious as to why this is an issue in Canada . . . I just spent about 20 minutes looking at electoral rules for various countries – UK, Australia, Israel and US (but US regulations are by state) and could not find any information regarding whether veiled voting was or was not allowed.

    Israel mentioned National ID cards, I presume these may have a photo, but still there was no indication that anyone wearing a veil is required to show their face.

    For US, I looked at Alabama's (first on the list!) and again found no indication of any such requirement.

    So, are we in Canada just 'cutting edge' or is the whole veiled voting concern grossly exaggerated for political ends?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Just before the last U.S. Presidential election the Supreme Court (U.S.) ruled that voter identification laws requiring photo ID were constitutional, and at the time about 20 states had adopted some sort of voter identification law.

      Indiana had the harshest requirements at the time, if you care to look further into it.

    • Jan

      I'm going with the latter.

  • McC_

    exactly.
    Too bad MPs are generally too busy on e-day for a Commons Committee to observe what actually happens in a polling place to decide whether the system we have now is good enough or not. Perhaps a good use for our Senators' time?

  • Jan

    James did you know it's Egyptian money behind Wind mobile?

  • Richard_S_Argent

    The funny thing is, you don't even really need to prove you're a citizen to vote. You get enumerated, you get a voter card. You show your driver's license at the polling station, and you vote. In 2006 I remember reading an article in the university newspaper about an American grad student who voted to see if he could get away with it. When he told Elections Canada they basically admitted it's a flaw, but the potential for chicanery is pretty negligible. Same thing here. No big deal.

    The Conservatives really seem intent on floating some sort of "Southern Strategy North" in the next election.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I'll be interested to see if the text of this bill actually bans voting with one's face covered, 'cause the last time the Tories tried to legislate this issue their bill transparently did NOT do what they publicly claimed they were trying to do (similar to their "fixed election dates" legislation that did nothing to fix the date of elections).

    I'm also interested to see if it even mentions the hundreds of thousands of people who vote by mail in any given election.

    One thing's for certain, after months of more acrimonious debate we may or may not end up fixing something that's never actually been a problem in any actual elections.

  • gottabesaid

    Long-form census… veiled voting… wow, the Conservatives sure do know how to pick consequential 'threats' to confront.

    Looking forward to seeing what the next threat to Canadian life and democracy will be, and how the Conservatives will protect us from it.

  • Mike T.

    Don't forget unreported crime and future military threats the details of which are not certain but can clearly only be met by 65 F-35 fighter jets, rendering a proper tender process unnecessary if not harmful.

  • tobyornotoby

    Don't forget the widespread problem of coerced abortions.

  • Jan

    I hear they've got a bill coming to help prevent choking on Middle Eastern kabobs. It involves closing all Middle Eastern restaurants.

  • Thwim

    I expect it will be dating lines. Tempting our children into calling thinly veiled phone-sex services, these phone-dating services obviously need to be stopped. Legislation will be drafted which will make it an offense for these companies to provide services to anybody unless they've verified that it is not a minor.

    How verification is conducted will be up to the company, of course, but anybody who is against this bill is obviously in support of having phone sex with children for money.

  • SanDiegoDave

    Well I moved from Peterborough to San Diego for a couple of years and I'm looking forward to voting remotely. Fortunately for me, my photo is right there in the upper left hand corner of this comment so I guess I'm totally safe.

    By the way, any passing resemblance to Dean Del Mastro really should be ignored.

  • sdfsdf

    You are trying to coat over your unjustified hatred for Muslims with sophisticated arguments and clishes. A politician cannot talk about principles in a country where the government has cornered the market on every type of vice from gambling to alcohol. Gambling, which in this country destroys about 100,000 lives a year (or more) and alcohol, which destroys countless more lives in this country, are both rackets that are run by the government and by the LCBO (a wing of the government). How can forget principle when it comes to those industrial scale vices, yet hearken to their twisted "principle" when it comes to a veil that less than a thousand women wear? It is good old, medieval, crusader, irrational and hopeless hatred of Islam. The west sees their colonial age domination of the very large Muslim world dying and dead, and it cannot stand it, their armies proved impotent in afghanistan, so now they are lashing out at their Muslims domestically as some sort of revenge. Their economies melted because of their gross levels of spending in their wars against Muslims, and their reputations are at the very rock bottom of the bucket because of the atrocities they committed in these wars (such as abu ghraib, guantanamo, aafia siddiqui).

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    I have nothing against it IF, the government sets up a national identity card, with photo, at no cost to the individual, which of course you'd have to renew every election or five years as you change over time. So we're talking big bucks.

    I live with a young person in a wheelchair who doesn't drive, and likely never will. He cannot use his Ontario Health Card as a photo ID because the address no longer appears on the card. He has to show his tax return and a bill which comes under his name to vote.

    What the people at the poll will verify is your address (they always ask your address firstly) and then your name. They don't have your pictures on the electoral list. If you showed up with a photo ID that is a perfect likeness of yourself but with an old address on it, you wouldn't be allowed to vote. It is not about determining whether you are yourself but whether you live at an address that is part of a poll. That's how the electoral lists are compiled.

  • tobyornotoby

    I dunno, if I thought I might be mistaken for Dean del Mastro I'd be in the forefront of the veiled voting movement.

  • sdfsdf

    Whether it was the 100 million natives that the anglo-saxon-french scorge wiped out, or the 80 million africans during the transatlantic slave trade, or the irish, or your own children who were used in coal mines in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, you are a people who are easily duped into hating anyone at any time.

  • sourstud

    So, you'll be voting NDP then?

  • A_logician

    You give the strong impression with your series of posts (assuming you in fact mean what you say) that you are rationalizing an irrational fear of the infidel. You focus on, exaggerate, and misrepresent centuries of occasional evil or misguided acts by a minority of non-Muslims toward Muslims, while ignoring centuries of occasional evil or misguided acts by some Muslims toward some non-Muslims, some Muslims toward other Muslims, and some non-Muslims to some other non-Muslims. You are the mirror image of Mark Steyn.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I certainly agree that if this is going to happen it should not force any cost on the voter.

    That said, something about the phrase "national identity card" still gives me the willies (even though I know it's not sinister in and of itself!).

  • gar

    Who are these hundreds of thousands who vote by mail.when there is an election they have absentee voting places for those who will not be available.Please list your reference for this stupid statement

  • EeeOar

    You are the mirror image of Mark Steyn.

    Ouch!

  • EeeOar

    Duping does seem to be a big, world-wide problem.

  • SteveJobs

    Voting by mail (special ballots) is how university students vote in their home ridings.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    253,069 Canadians voted by special ballot in 2008, while 438,390 voted by special ballot in 2006. You're not even required to be overseas or anything, EVERY Canadian has the option of mailing in their ballot, even if they'll be at home on election day and their polling place is IN THE LOBBY OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING. You can download the special ballot application form online for Pete's sake.

    Even though Wherry links to Akin's blog post above, I'll save you the trouble of going there and link right to the Elections Canada page he links to as his source. I see now that you may be quibbling with how many of those special ballots were mailed, versus dropped off at an Elections Canada office, so I'll just stick with the number of special ballots received in Ottawa that they needed special ballot officers to count, since they weren't dropped of at polling stations, which was 75,500. I'm reasonably sure that more ballots were mailed in 2008 than this, so this is a low estimate. However, I'll concede the point nonetheless and amend my statement accordingly.

    I'll be interested to see if the bill even mentions the tens of thousands of people who vote by mail in any given election.

  • Answer…

    http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&…

    See section 2.7. Specifically "In all, 253,069 valid votes were cast by special ballot in the 40th general election (excluding 4,903 rejected ballots), compared with 438,390 in the 39th general election."

  • McC_

    But without such a card we get into a deep problem: Canadians have a right to vote, but Canadians do not have a right to photo ID. How would we square requiring something that citizens have no right to in order to excercise a right? Every Canadian has a right to a SIN card, but this is not photo ID, and passports are expensive and must be renewed every 5 years (and not everyone wants, needs or can acquire one). not everyone wants, needs or can acquire a driver's licence, and Ontario has photo ID on its health cards, but this is not considered valid photo ID, and why would the federal governmetn require identification from the provincial government in order to vote federally? Do we see a problem here yet?

  • Jan

    Well, if we're ever going to go to online voting this would all be a waste. I can communicate with the CRA online securely, why couldn't I be able to vote.

From Macleans