Fundamentally what I think is that if there were fraud in an electoral system, it should be eliminated. In fact, if there were anything harmful about the electoral system, I would think it should be eliminated.
But there is no evidence of fraud or harm, and when you propose to eliminate a harm that doesn't exist and you weigh it against the harm that would be created.... In this case, the harm that would be created is the disenfranchisement of Canadians, some of whom are vulnerable—and, as Mr. Quail pointed out, not all of whom are vulnerable, just people who showed up with the wrong kind of ID at an election poll.... Many of my students don't have ID with residential requirements on it, but they are fine—more or less fine, anyway—young, upstanding adults who intend to participate in the democratic process.
There are people who will find it more difficult to vote, and I can't see any reason why a government would make it more difficult to vote when there is no evidence that any harm is being perpetrated. Why would you do that? What possible reason could you have to restrict access to the vote? Government's job is to protect that right by enabling people to vote, by providing as many different ways as possible for citizens to vote, to encourage them to do so.