All right, thank you.
Just by way of introduction, as you may know my academic research is focused on voting systems, questions of voter turnout, voter registration, big qualitative but also historical terms. I've also been an academic adviser on an audit of Elections Canada in the 2000s.
I also have a lot of practical experience on elections. I was a deputy district electoral officer in British Columbia, which meant I was second in charge of running a local constituency as the administrator in 1996 and 2001, training 300 people to work on election day, hiring halls to have people come and vote, and all those kinds of details. I have an analysis of this that is both academic but also informed by some practical experience.
As you know from the brief that I submitted, I identified at least three problem areas that I saw with the legislation.
First, it seemed to me that the legislation offers a solution in search of a problem, given that there is no systematic comparative academic evidence that voter fraud is a problem.
Second, I noted an inconsistent application of the rules on the basis of geographic location inside or outside the country in the identification required and the registration processes.
Finally, I felt there was an inappropriate or disproportionate response to the problem, if there is a problem, in terms of the proof of residence required by those outside the country and the onerous registration restrictions. I didn't see how they could be justified in terms of the aims that were put forward about what the government wanted to accomplish with these reforms.
That's just a very brief summary of what I put in my brief here, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.