I'm not 100% sure whether it was the intention of Ms. Redman to do one of two things I could see this as meaning, so I'm going to ask, and maybe she can clarify it for us.
The way the amendment is written, it leaves the impression with me that a document issued by the Government of Canada that certifies that a person is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act is sufficient to be the one piece of identification; that you don't need a second one with your address.
I say that because the last part says “constitutes proof of that person's identity”, which suggests that it is all that is required. I'm not sure that was the intention; that's how I read it.
That's very different to me from saying that a document issued by the Government of Canada constitutes an authorized piece of identification, in which case it is one of the two pieces you're using under proposed paragraph 143(2)(b).
I'm just wondering which of the two meanings Mrs. Redman had in mind.