Thank you, Chair.
I'll be voting against this motion for a couple of pretty basic reasons.
One reason is the wording of the motion, particularly in the second paragraph, where it says that members of the committee continue to have serious concerns regarding implementation of this legislation. There may be some who do, but certainly there are some who don't. So I can't support it based on that.
The other thing is that you're making an assumption here—and I know we've had testimony about this at committee before—on the ability of candidates to raise money and to take out loans. My contention and my experience is that the majority of loans taken out are secured by riding associations, inasmuch as they assign their rebate to the financial institution.
Frankly, I don't know of too many individual candidates who can go under any circumstances and get a $50,000 loan to run a political campaign if their riding association has no money. That in itself is an indication of the relative level of political support within that particular riding. I think that most banks, regardless of what legislation was brought down, would have to be taking a serious look at whether that individual would qualify for a loan. To suggest that it's going to make it more difficult for financial institutions or for candidates because they have to get 50 guarantors—I would suggest that this is going to work itself out, quite frankly.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any candidate in any riding who it was apparent didn't have very much political support. It's kind of like the NDP running a candidate in a very strong Bloc Québécois riding. I think it would be very difficult for anyone in that particular situation for the NDP to go in and say “I have no money in the riding association, no organization, so give me $50,000, because I think I have a great shot at winning this election.” It's not going to happen. This is the reality of politics. We all know this. We've all been through this game before.
Based on that, I think the legislation as proposed, and with even some of the amendments the Conservative Party has opposed in the clause-by-clause examination, is still a good piece of legislation. To suggest otherwise would be doing a disservice to a lot of the discussions we've had around this committee table.
Based on those two things alone, I will definitely be opposing this motion. Although I am firmly convinced that Mr. Owen put it forward in all good faith, I just do not agree with many of the terms of this motion.
Thank you, Chair.