Still, I can see the benefit of doing that. In fact, it ties into what Mr. Mayrand told the committee when he was here. He said the biggest problem was that people would have to re-register every time the writ was issued. The person would have to provide proof of their address every time. I like your solution of not making the person provide proof of address again if it is still the same. The view taken would simply be that if the person had lived at an address in Canada for 20 years, the same address would still be applied. I think that approach could certainly fix the problem.
There something we haven't talked about yet, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. You said you had heard Mr. Mayrand's remarks to the committee, so you'll know what I'm referring to. Under the new rules, pieces of identification to prove an elector's identity and address must be issued by an entity incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or a provincial legislature or that is otherwise formed in Canada.
Mr. Mayrand told the committee that the rule was extremely vague and could prove problematic because it also changes the rules for all voters in Canada. In fact, problems could arise when it wasn't possible to ascertain whether a document was issued by an entity formed in Canada or otherwise. It's very vague.
Where do you stand on that? Do you think it should be changed?