I received my voter information card in the mail from Elections Canada yesterday, and reflexively tore it in half. The bland notice symbolizes the Conservative government’s cynical attempts to disenfranchise voters in the upcoming election. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said last year that he was worried about voter fraud, and so his majority government changed the election rules.

The so-called Fair Elections Act makes it harder for eligible citizens to vote, but does nothing to crack down on alleged fraud, which the government claimed (contrary to the evidence) was a grave and growing concern. Despite his stated distress, Harper doesn’t really seem to be worried about identifying voters — his new rules do almost nothing to ensure that those who cast a ballot are eligible to do so.

It is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to use a government service, board an airplane, pick up a prescription, or get into a nightclub without photo identification. In some cases, even government-issued photo ID like a health card is rejected. But even under the Fair Elections Act, you do not need to show photo identification to vote.

You can vote on Oct. 19, or on advance polling dates, with a library card and a hydro bill. A student card and a lease can get the job done. You can even show an electronic statement on your phone as one piece of ID. The critical requirements are that you confirm both your name and your address. The Conservatives’ indifference to photo ID seems not to match their concerns about fraud.

Similarly, the act does not require a prospective voter to prove her age or citizenship with documents, even though a person must be 18 years old and a citizen of Canada to vote. Again, if Conservatives were really concerned about fraud, they could have insisted that prospective voters simply demonstrate these eligibility requirements.

If a voter cannot verify her current address with documents, she can still vote through a process called vouching, whereby a neighbour with documentation confirms her identity and address. The Conservatives tried to eliminate vouching altogether in the original draft of the act. Under pressure from opposition parties and voting advocates, they amended the rules: now you can vouch for only one neighbour, whereas before you could vouch for as many as you pleased. If vouching enables fraud, one wonders why it would be allowed at all.

In summary, the Conservatives were worried about voter fraud, and then drafted new rules that do not mandate photo ID, proof of citizenship, proof of age and, in some cases, proof of address. So what exactly did they change, and why?

The most significant difference under the act is that the voter card I ripped up is no longer a valid document to verify my address, even though it was sent to me by Elections Canada, during the election period. Approximately 400,000 Canadians verified their addresses with these cards in 2011, many of them seniors, students, and indigenous people living on reserves. Many won’t realize the cards can’t be used as ID any more. I have no idea how this change will make elections more fair, although I bet it will negatively impact voter turnout.

Another major change in the act, to limit vouching to one person, disproportionately affects First Nations people on reserves. Many of these communities don’t have a civic address, so confirming voter registration without vouching is very difficult. It will be even tougher now, all in the name of eliminating fraud that has never been established — a mere 18 instances have been reported to Elections Canada over the last two elections.

Canadians are increasingly shunning formal politics and elections. Yet if a politician warns of presumed outsiders who plan to overthrow our institutions — niqab debate, anyone? — we are hyper-vigilant. But the Conservatives’ shameless interference shows that it is political insiders who are most likely to distort democracy.

Our fears are easily exploited. We could defend our electoral process through mandatory photo ID, and citizenship and age verification. Just to be safe, we could implement lie detector tests, retina scans, and fingerprinting. Turnout would plummet further, and more quickly. Or, better yet, we could realize that participation and inclusion also determine the legitimacy of the vote.

Desmond Cole’s column appears every Thursday.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: