Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm concerned for John Baird. He came to this committee as one of the very first witnesses and said, “We're going to get the money out of politics.” There may have been many people across the country watching, and it may have been printed in the print media to lead people to believe we were going to get the money out of politics through this long and arduous venture.
But I don't see anything here that will limit the use, for instance, by the major parties of massive amounts of money on negative advertising campaigns that denigrated the political process, in my view and in the view of many of my constituents, in the last couple of elections. I am directing the question primarily to Mr. MacKinnon and Mr. Donison, because I think you are the most guilty as party representatives of the big money negative ad campaigns.
My question is this. There's nothing in this reform about decreasing spending limits. From what I read, the Conservative Party is doing quite well at the bank in rolling in the money, so there'll be lots of money for lots more negative ads. And there's nothing here touching political action committees—PACs, or whatever you like—the non-political parties that deliver a political message on behalf of the major parties or other parties.
And I really don't think at the end of the day, especially with the limits on convention spending indirectly.... I do think there will be a limit on the democratic involvement at conventions and meetings of parties, which is what the democratic process is all about.
In other words, the public may be expecting, because they may have a fresh new feeling of optimism about Mr. Baird—whom I personally like, and he's a wonderful public servant, public office holder.... But what is this going to really do to take the money out of politics? I don't see how it is going to do that. It might even get worse, and the political process would be imbued with this big money negative ad spree if there are no limits on spending.