Sure. We think that the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada and all of the independent experts who have studied this know a lot better and are the experts on this. We should be listening to them rather than a party who has an implicit—or at least the perception—of bias. When you look at the Chief Electoral Officer requesting certain things, there is very little rationale other than they want to improve the functioning of our democracy.
So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would be our perspective that you would want to give the Chief Electoral Officer and our elections watchdogs the powers they requested. Whether that's to compel parties to provide documentary evidence of receipts of money that they spend, or more importantly in our opinion, the power to compel testimony.
I mean you look at the rest of Canada, I believe seven provinces have the power to compel testimony. Australia has a power to compel testimony. The United States has the power to compel testimony. Just saying that because the police don't have it, Elections Canada shouldn't have it, is not a rationale. The Competition Bureau has it. They used it 26 times last year and very effectively. The Auditor General has it. So in our opinion we generally trust the recommendations of independent and non-partisan experts.