Page: 25 [59] While the commission of these Part 19 offences may constitute electoral fraud or corrupt or illegal practices for the purposes of s 524, the construction of those terms in s 524 is not of Parliament. [60] As stated at paragraph 36 of the majority’s reasons in Opitz, “the words of an Act are to be read in their “entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 SCR 559, at para. 26, citing E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87.”) Protecting the integrity of the democratic process is a central purpose of the Act in order to ensure the constitutional right to vote and the enfranchising purpose of the statute. In the context of s 524, “fraud”, “corrupt practices” or “illegal practices” should therefore be defined in their ordinary and grammatical sense employing the dictionary definitions of the words to serve that purpose. (3) [61] The meaning of “fraud” in s 524(1) In the course of argument, counsel drew my attention to statements by an official before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when Bill C-2, the proposed new Canada Elections Act, was before Parliament in April 2000. The statement was to the effect that the intent of the Government was to adopt a meaning of “fraud” which corresponded to the meaning in the criminal context: testimony of Mr. Michael Peirce, Counsel, Director, Legal Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office, in Senate of Canada, 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) limited to the scope of those offences. There is no indication in the Act that such was the intent