Mr. Speaker, there were so many things in that intervention. I fundamentally disagree with my colleague opposite that it is unreasonable for someone who has been living abroad for five years to provide proof of residency in a certain riding. Again, going back to that fundamental concept of a connection to the MP and the riding, when people cast their ballots, they cast them for a candidate. This is something my colleagues rose in debate and supported with the Reform Act, which the Ottawa media has talked about and celebrated quite a bit.
If we are to debate and enshrine that principle, then it would make sense that a potentially large group of people, who have lived abroad for numerous years, would also fall under that same umbrella.
As outlined in this bill, requiring those folks to show proof of residency, which could be done through an attestation, is entirely reasonable. The bill would do that.
When we have had other democratic reform measures come before the House, we have looked at ways to ensure that we can show proof of residence, show proof of identity, have all of those good things enshrined, while also ensuring the voter is made aware of how to do that. That, of course, is the role of Elections Canada, that education on how to vote.
Should these provisions come into force, I would assume that Elections Canada officials would work to ensure there would be appropriate education materials in terms of timing and how attestations could be made, how proof of residence could be shown.
It is a bit of a false argument to say that somehow this is a disenfranchisement, because there is a very clear procedure with broad forms of identification, as well as a clear process for attestations, I really do not think this is a disenfranchisement at all.
However, we do want to ensure that these provisions, should they come into force do so quickly. I would urge my colleague to push this bill to committee for review.