Selective Discrimination
by Pete Cunningham
*Submitted for publication to The Neswpaper: U of T's Independent Weekly 1/30/2006, never printed

Last week I conducted an experiment which brought me to the conclusion that it was way to easy to vote illegally and that the Canadian electoral registration process needs improvement.  A simple solution to this problem (or at least what I thought to be a simple solution) would be that proof of citizenship be required for same day registration, and that a photo identification card be required for pre-registered voters to cast a ballot.  Apparently there is not a consensus on this issue.

Recently elected MP Olivia Chow, whose Trinity-Spadina riding includes most of the 6,120 international students at The University of Toronto and Chinatown, believes that despite the relative ease at which someone could vote illegally, proof of citizenship should still not be required for registration.  She went on record stating that she fears doing so will discourage voter participation, and discriminates against the poor and certain minority groups. 

This is to suggest that the poor and minority groups do not have proof of citizenship readily on hand, nor the means to obtain such in the 36 days which must precede an election after the dissolution of a Parliament.  It’s been suggested that requiring such may unfairly discriminate against the poor and minority groups.  Really?  If that is the case, than many of our institutions are guilty of that same discrimination.

Apparently all Canadian employers are guilty of discrimination.  In order for someone to be legally employed in Canada, they must provide employers with a SIN card.  In order to obtain this card one must provide Human Resources Development Canada with a primary document that proves their identity and legal status in Canada.  In many cases, but not required by law, a police background check is also asked for at the expense of the applicant.  If a politician turns a blind eye to non-citizens voting, it’s acceptable and may even be beneficial.  Turning a blind eye to those same non-citizens taking Canadian jobs however would be political suicide. 

The public school systems are apparently guilty of discrimination.  The Toronto District School Board requires proof of age, citizenship, immunization, custody, and permanent address to register a child for classes.  Is this indicative of a discriminatory education system, or does this prove that requesting such documents is a reasonable request?

Is requiring these documents preventing the poor and minority groups from working, and going to school?  If this is the case, why is action not being taken by the same government officials who are so adamantly against providing such documentation for voter registration?  Why are grievances not being filed against employers for unfair hiring practices and against the school systems for denying educational opportunities?

The contradiction in stances must be looked at through the hazy specter of politics to be fully understood.  Certain politicians are against providing proof of citizenship so that voter turnout numbers may be padded and also because they could potentially benefit from illegal voting.  Those same politicians are however for proof of citizenship in order to be employed in Canada because the last thing any politician wants to do is look like they are taking jobs away from hard working Canadians.  In light of this, how are we supposed to know if asking for proof of citizenship is or is not a discriminatory practice?

When in doubt, look to the children.   Education is an issue which seems to remain non-partisan for the most part in that everyone agrees it is an undeniable right to all.  Proof of citizenship is required to attend public school.  To suggest that proof of citizenship discriminates or discourages participation in elections is to suggest that the educational system is guilty of that same discrimination. 

The truth is that the school system does not unfairly discriminate, they are simply exercising necessary precautions in order to ensure our children’s safety; it’s unfortunate that certain politicians do not feel it necessary to exercise these same safe guards in regard to preserving the electoral process.