Thank you to both witnesses. I have several questions, and I'm just going to state them at one time, and then you can decide which ones you might like to touch on.
Mr. Lortie, you said that section 376(3) was problematic because it encourages the circumvention of the rules and undermines the ability of Elections Canada to verify and confirm that the practices adopted do not contravene the act. You also said that that section makes it possible to exclude from election expenses the commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting contributions from individuals who contributed at least $20 in the five years preceding the date of the vote.
In the bill, why was the wording “at least $20” chosen? If a donation is under $20, it can be anonymous. The wording is not “over $20”, but rather “$20 or more”.
The second question is, Mr. Lortie, in your original massive and incredibly helpful report from the late 1980s, at one point it says:
The Canada Elections Act must not impede the appropriate use of new technologies in the electoral process as they become available; this will help to ensure that the voting process remains user friendly and cost effective. Specific developments in communications technologies may be difficult to anticipate, however. The Act should not freeze voting and other election procedures at the level allowed by current technologies; but at the same time the integrity of the electoral system must be maintained.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but in the bill there is a special singling out of electronic voting so that this is the sole alternative voting process that Elections Canada now cannot do without having the full agreement of the House of Commons and the Senate. For any other alternative procedure, it goes to the appropriate committee, this one in the House and a committee in the Senate. That's the current law. They're creating a huge obstacle for this one form of voting without allowing Elections Canada to engage in its own tests. I'm wondering if you have any comments on if it's appropriate to add that extra obstacle.
The last two questions will be short.
It's true that there's an extension of the politicization of appointing of election day workers, but the most serious addition is adding central poll supervisors as the first-place party or candidate from the last election's appointment. The current system ostensibly has this so-called balance, because deputy returning officers and poll clerks are appointed by the first-place and second-place parties. Is there any conceivable reason why at this point in time the first-place party should now also be given this additional appointment, apart from the fact, and I totally agree, that political parties should not be involved in the first place?
Last, Mr. Conacher, you mentioned the $5,000 donations to one's own campaign. It in fact could end up being $8,000. You can give $5,000; you can give $1,500 to your EDA; and you can give $1,500 to the national party that one way or another might make its way back to you, although you can't make that deal in the first place.
I'm just wondering if you could each comment on any one of those points that you like.