With respect, we still need to respond, Mr. Chair. One thing that was clear is that the people involved in our shelters and drop-in programs are actually picking up the slack for the fact that we just didn't have a process for people who didn't have an address, essentially.
This is very new. What we're doing is simply establishing that practice here because, au contraire, we would have a problem. The whole problem was that people weren't able to provide.... If I go as someone who is without an address, I have to have to some sort of proof that I am staying at Centre 454 or the Ottawa Mission, etc. We don't have anything in place presently to do that, except what we heard from witnesses the Chief Electoral Officer has accommodated and worked with. What we're doing here is making sure we have that practice of the vouching process acknowledged, particularly when we go down further in the bill. You need to establish some credentials, because they often won't have electricity bills or bills of any sort to say they are staying at this homeless shelter or this drop-in centre.
A process has been put together by people who are working with the Chief Electoral Officer to do that. My concern is that the bill, as presently in front of us, would require someone to vouch that I'm staying at a certain place; if I don't have any paper on that, it's difficult, and we heard that from witnesses.
Simply put, we're putting that practice into place. It allows for an oath for a client of an agency that is approved by the CEO and who is vouched for by a representative. It gives some credence to the process and procedure that is presently happening, and that's why I think it's so very important. If we don't do this, I think we're putting a lot of people in jeopardy. Effectively, I'm not seeing in the bill how we could do this without having something like this in place.