Personally, I'm not familiar with that. But my sense is that the minister will likely want to review the definition to make it clearer.
What's more, I was interested in the fact that certain pieces of identification used to prove an elector's identity and address could be problematic. That's why, in my remarks, I suggested allowing the person to vote, setting that person's ballot aside and, the day after the election, verifying whether it was acceptable or not. If it was, the person's ballot would be accepted and counted.
When a Canadian goes to the trouble of voting, that person's right to vote shouldn't be easily denied. I know everyone won't agree, but I also suggested that a person who is missing a piece of identification be allowed to vote. That ballot would then be set aside, considered a provisional ballot, and the person would have up to two to three days after the election to provide the appropriate documentation. At that point, the person's ballot would be accepted.
I believe that, in Opitz, the Supreme Court of Canada found that errors committed during an election don't carry enough weight to reject a ballot when they are being counted, thus introducing the concept of reconstructing the election after the fact. I found that quite fascinating. I'm not sure that was the intent, but it is a consideration. I think that provisional balloting will one day be recognized in Canada because of that ruling.