Thank you.
I agree with my colleague that there is, generally speaking, a good balance within the bill. I agree that sunset laws are wonderful and that it would be a good idea to revisit this—to require yourselves to revisit this—very shortly, because it's not just the law changing. Technology is also changing daily, it seems.
I would suggest that you revisit one section, proposed section 482.01. There is a list of things that would be prohibited. One of the last ones is in proposed paragraph 482.01(g). It would allow prosecution when someone comments on the results of an election. The problem with this is that part 20 of the act allows you to challenge the results of an election. I could see someone saying, “I think the Chief Electoral Officer lost a ballot box.” That sounds like you're challenging the results of the election. If you had a debate over that in a civil court and decided it was or wasn't lost, that's fine. However, putting it into quasi-criminal territory, where just because you raised that question.... In a prosecution, you would have to prove your bona fides. Your good faith would be on the table.
Think about it. Once the election is over, how can your commentary have an impact on that election? It's already done. To me, proposed paragraph 482.01(g) goes further than necessary and therefore would not be a reasonable limit “in a free and democratic society” under section 1 of the charter.