Procedure and House Affairs committee  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm saying this from memory, but I think this was a change brought by Bill C-23. Prior to Bill C-23, there was a maximum of two electors who could attend the vote in the absence of representatives, but we'd have to confirm that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you. Unless I'm contradicted by my colleagues here, within the modernization of the voting initiative proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, this would include an additional burden of finding at least two electors to stay for the entirety of the counting of the votes. This is just a practical comment on the effect of this amendment.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I have a question for Mr. Nater. I'm sorry. I know it's not usual for witnesses to ask questions.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I need a clarification on the amendment. Am I correct in understanding that the effect of this amendment would be to require that, in the absence of candidates or representatives, at least two electors attend each ballot box?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Nater. I understand that, but at proposed paragraph 283(1)(b) in this proposed section in the bill, there is the part you are proposing to change, which adds “in respect of each ballot box”. Then we go to proposed paragraph (b), which currently says: (b) any candidates or their representatives who are present or, if no candidates or representatives are present, at least two electors.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't think it's within the spirit of the exception, but of course it would depend on the context. It would depend on what was said and the amount of time that was devoted to that specific topic, etc.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Of course.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  This amendment actually implements the recommendation of the Commissioner of Canada Elections exactly in the way that Ms. Sahota explained it. Someone making a false statement that is prohibited could be charged with the offence associated with proposed section 91, and could also be charged under the provision at proposed section 282.4 with reference to (2)(c), which would now become (2)(b).

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Bittle. The exception that is provided at proposed paragraph 282.4(3)(c) is for the transmission of programs, or print such as an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, etc. This language has been used for a long time in the Canada Elections Act as an exception to the definition of election advertising, so there is a history to that kind of exception in the act.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  While we're not in this part of the act, I would like to point out that such a company or such an entity would be considered a third party under part 17 of the act. Part 17 of the act includes amendments from both the Liberals and the Conservatives to restrict foreign funding for third parties.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't have any further comment on that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The proposed subsection we're talking about, 282.4(1), applies only during the writ period. Part 17 of the act includes a period during the pre-writ period and the writ period, and one Liberal amendment contemplates adding a new division that would cover periods that are neither election periods nor pre-election periods.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It could have activities in Canada, but it could not fund these activities with foreign funds. It would need to get money from a Canadian source for partisan activities.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The question of the extraterritoriality of application of the charter is quite debatable. Of course, a person, including a company, who has a presence in Canada would have charter rights. But for a company or a person who is outside Canada and doesn't have activities in Canada, the charter rights could be more volatile.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I am not an expert in incorporation law, so I won't answer that portion of your question, just because I don't know. That being said, we were just discussing the application of the charter a few minutes ago. I would point out that a corporation that is present in Canada would also have freedom of speech rights in Canada.