That's right.
My question, and you can both respond to it, but I'm hoping to start with Professor Archer this time, is on the different kinds of ID. You have looked at different ID and consulted with different organizations about this. I assume that some similar consultation process goes on with the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada before he chooses to add items of ID to his list.
We on this committee have not had a chance to see what those consultations were, whom they were with, what kinds of outcomes they produced, what kind of expectations they had, and what the results were. None of this is shared with us. It's a source of perpetual frustration to me that this and much other information is not shared with us.
I see this committee's role effectively being—because he is an officer of Parliament, and he reports to Parliament via this committee—as a board of directors. He is the management of Elections Canada, which is effectively a government corporation that is charged with the role of administering elections. I sit on another corporate board of directors, and we wouldn't put up with the lack of information that flows from Elections Canada. It's been a systemic problem. I don't blame just Mr. Mayrand for this; it has been an ongoing problem.
However, these initiatives pop out of nowhere without consultation with us. They are pushed forward without any information being provided to us, unless we ask for it. Then we don't get any feedback on how well they have done, except these sort of off-handed comments that it was a great success, totally non-quantified.
My question is, can these things can be quantified? Are they such arts that they can only be described qualitatively? Perhaps that is the case. Could there not be some sort of mechanism by which we would get better feedback as to the merits and demerits of this list of pieces of identification, which in the federal case is 39, but could be expanded to include others as appropriate?