Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm not aware of any institution where we would not repeat the experience.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Absolutely.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It would be a contribution. Whether it's unlawful or not depends on the amount of the contribution. Any amount of money provided to a party to support any of the party's expenses and activities, not specifically litigation expenses, would be a contribution under the current regim

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would hesitate to adopt the assumption that is underlying that question: that Elections Canada would intend to do that. I understand very well, however, the financial pressure that exists on parties, and that would be amplified in the case of expensive litigation. I think it's

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I must say that I find that question a bit difficult to answer, not having seen the contents of the legislation, and in particular, the CEO recommendations implementation bill. Clearly, any legislation that involves significant technology would require some time for implementatio

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We have worked in the past, and we continue to work, with the Communications Security Establishment. It provides the standards that are appropriate for our services, and we rely on its expertise in terms of the level of security. It's our job to make sure that those standards are

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We'll need to test the systems. Of course, laboratory simulations will be conducted. Extensive testing must be conducted before the equipment is introduced at polling sites. We may have the opportunity to do so during a by-election. If the opportunity arises, we'll seize it, obvi

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to be here today to speak to Bill C-50. I will try to keep my remarks brief to leave as much time as possible for questions from the members. Bill C-50 has two main elements, both related to political financing. The first element is a new regime

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I've had the pleasure of speaking across different jurisdictions in Canada and abroad about our political financing regime. I've never said it was perfect, but I do honestly believe it is one of the better calibrated regimes that I've seen. I certainly would not envy any other re

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think that's a very good point. The rules that we have here today for review by this committee are a good example of what I call a regulatory regime. This is not the stuff of criminal law. Certainly I would hope that if there was a regime for administrative monetary penalties,

Procedure and House Affairs committee  For most of the political financing rules in the act when there's a requirement or a prohibition, there's both an offence created that we call a negligence offence or a due diligence offence, which does not require intent but only requires that the person exercise due diligence,

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would have to go back, but I believe that's the case, yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  As long as part of the $500 includes a contribution, so assuming the benefit received is not the full amount, then it would trigger the new rules. All participants present would be disclosed as part of the regime, not only the purchaser of the tickets.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think that would make sense, of course. I would support that. I just want to come back to my first answer, because I may have misled the committee. I'm thankful for—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The trigger is having been required to pay at least $200, so I believe in terms of the tickets, independent of the number of tickets bought, if buying at least one ticket of over $200 is required, then that would be caught. But if the amount of the ticket that is required to atte