Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple of points here and then a question for Monsieur Mayrand.
In response to Madame Robillard's question as to what good it would do if you have to uncover your face and you have two pieces of identification that don't have a photo, how does that help, it may not help completely, but of course every party has scrutineers. Someone perhaps could catch the fact that it's not the person they know it to be, because they've seen the face and they don't care if they have identification saying the person is John Doe because they know John Doe and that's not John Doe. That's one of the stopgaps. It's not perfect, but at least it's something. You suggested, perhaps, that it would be of no use. I think it would be of some use to be able to see the individual who is requesting to cast a ballot.
With respect to Mr. Dewar's comment that there were only three cases of fraud in the previous election, I would suggest that although it may not have occurred more than three times, the ability to cast fraudulent votes has been there up to this point in time, and we have discussed that extensively at this committee.
As an example, my colleague Mr. Reid has pointed out that in the previous election he received, actually, multiple voting cards—one saying “Scott Reid”, another one saying “R. Scott Reid”, and a third one saying “Scott Douglas Reid”—which could have allowed him, should he have chosen to do so, to go to various polling stations and cast ballots.
What we're suggesting with this bill, what we're attempting to do, is to cut down on the potential use of fraudulent voters.
I see Mr. Dewar shaking his head, suggesting that would never happen.