Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, because it is in the document that we receive.... The return is available at Elections Canada in an unredacted form, but it's not published at Elections Canada. It's available to anyone who wishes to inspect it. On the website, the contents of the document are reported, but they're in a more readable form.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would just read it as.... I mean, there are other references to the return. Section 477.59 is the candidate's return, so it would be published on the website. This is a quick read at this time, but it looks to me like it suggests that it would then be posted on the website, presumably in a PDF format—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's correct.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, not the way this is written because the reference of subsection 477.59(1) is to the declarations of the official agent and the candidate, the return itself, and the auditor's report. Those documents, I guess, would be published, but the vouchers, which are the documents you're talking about, the supporting documents are in subsection (2), so they wouldn't be published online under this.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, it is. The obligation in the act, and I don't have the section right with me, is to publish the returns in the manner and form which the Chief Electoral Officer feels is appropriate. On the Internet, then—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It will probably not be a comprehensive list, but there is certainly a report after every general election and a report on by-elections. There is a recommendations report that is made after each election on suggestions that the Chief Electoral Officer has to change the act. There's a provision in the act that allows the Chief Electoral Officer to replace signatures with another method that they believe will be satisfactory for the purposes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know the specifics in terms of how we would inform people. I think it's fair to say that in terms of the entire implementation, we'll obviously have to be clear and inform people. I don't think we would object to a process for informing people of these things. If I can take a step back, right now in the act there is a category of personal expenses, which includes child care, travel and living expenses.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know exactly how. As various changes are rolled out, we'll certainly issue the candidate handbooks. I assume we'll have some other ways, on our website and through other means, to contact candidates and potential candidates, and obviously, electoral district associations and parties.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think I would read it similarly to Mr. Morin, or at least it raises that question in the sense that where, elsewhere in the third party regime, we've said a registered third party has to report contributions, they are contributions made for certain purposes—for election advertising or partisan activities.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, and the only thing I would add would be that as a candidate, once you start accepting contributions or incurring expenses for your election, even if it's before the writ period, the bank account has to be opened because all those contributions and expenses have to go through that bank account.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The section we're dealing with, proposed section 349.3, isn't so much about the spending, the collusion to avoid spending limits, although that may be the motivation for the sharing. It talks about no third party, no registered party, acting in collusion in order to influence the third party in what it does, under the current one.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I guess it would depend on the facts. The obvious case would be a survey that a polling company normally would sell being given to a political party. That would clearly be a non-monetary contribution.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Under the current act, if a good or a service is provided to a party for less than its commercial value, you have to ask if it's free, but if it's free to everyone, then it's not a contribution.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, that's just what I was going to add. Depending always on the circumstances, there may be a contribution, and there could potentially be a contribution to multiple parties. But I think it is a different situation where it's an over-contribution and you're giving a lower price to one party.