Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question in excellent French. I am very grateful for that.
As for the funding loophole, I previously talked about it when I was answering my colleague's question.
In terms of the security of the ballot boxes, this was a Conservative amendment that was very interesting on the substance, but not as interesting in form, in our opinion, because it wanted to include something very specific into the Elections Act to protect ballot boxes. If memory serves, I remember, for example, that the clause provided for the use of a three-point locking system, along with video surveillance. This is something that, in our opinion, should be in the regulations instead, which allow for much more flexibility.
Including the principle of the security of ballot boxes is something that could have been done by amending the act. However, very specific proposals were made, for example, with regard to using a three-point locking system. In five years, that may be a completely outdated technology. We would then be stuck with an election law that is no longer up to date, which would impose on the party something that no longer works and that cannot be changed other than through a legislative amendment. However, in that context, the regulations would have allowed for more flexibility.
It was a really great idea. The way it was carried out might have warranted a different approach. That is why we voted against it. It was not the principle that we took issue with, but rather the way it was handled.