Yes, I do agree with the changes that have been made to the act that empower the commissioner of Canada elections to a greater degree, both in terms of the investigative powers that they'll now possess and in terms of the powers to transfer information in reciprocal relationships with other governments or actors.
This is part of the recommendations that came out of the foreign interference commission that suggest that the commissioner should have greater latitude in order to do the work that is traditionally done by the office of the commissioner. Often in the past, as I believe the commissioner indicated this morning, there's been a certain amount of discretion that has been exercised by that office so that, while people are being caught by the act, the appropriate mechanism for dealing with a contravention is set up to address the type of contravention and also the nature of the actor.
For example, there was a past instance wherein a number of university students ran afoul of the act, likely in ways they did not understand. In that case, is a large administrative monetary penalty the right move? No. We wouldn't want to suppress the activity of university students, who are becoming acclimatized to the political ecosystem. In that sense, it is important that the commissioner has that sort of discretion to issue smaller orders or letters or use other approaches to dealing with contraventions.
What Bill C-25 does contemplate is the fact that the commissioner is a very powerful actor—or has the potential to be an even more powerful actor—in making sure that the information circulating in the background with respect to potential data breaches, potential misuse of funds, undue foreign influence, undue influence even in the domestic context.... The commissioner can be more proactive in addressing these types of potential infractions or contraventions of the act.