The first comment to make about amendments PV-6 and PV-7 together, or alternatively about amendment NDP-5, which substantially is the same thing, although worded in a somewhat different manner, is that if we were to adopt this, we would effectively be imposing on certain actors a legislative requirement that they follow interpretation guidelines. They effectively cease at that point to be interpretation guidelines, that is, a guide as to the things that I am prepared to prosecute. My own interpretation of the law is that this reading is going too far as to what you're allowed to do. However, that reading of the provision of the law is within the bounds, barely within the bounds, perhaps.
Once we say that these future rulings of the Chief Electoral Officer are binding on any participant, they are not guidelines anymore, but regulations. This is a fundamental change. If they're binding on the auditors, let's face it, they're binding on the rest of us. We get audits done. This is a backdoor way of achieving that which the legislation seeks through the front door to prevent. I would argue that it's going in a different direction than I think the law ought to go, and I would oppose it on that basis.
I want to say something else. At the very end of our last discussion, between Mr. Christopherson and me, the concern we had is that this won't lead to litigation...aside from the fact that we have given a very strong indication in our transcripts as to the intent of the relevant part of the law.
Also, these are only interpretation bulletins. In the end, they do not actually determine what the law is, merely what someone who has no judicial authority believes them to be. We would be shifting from that. In a sense, if we were to adopt this amendment, we would be making my prior statement untrue, which I think would be a step backwards.