First, to Mr. Bittle's concern, the pre-election spending limits, which have been struck down in B.C., at least, were for Canadian and Canadian-based outfits. I don't know if we've taken it to the Supreme Court yet, if it's been tested there. What I understand is that the attempt here is to seek to limit the influence during the pre-election period of businesses that are established within Canada only for the purpose of trying to influence electors.
It holds with what John said. If we put restrictions on political parties and third parties in the pre-election period, clearly there are votes at play, whether the ballots have been issued or not. I assume that's why the Liberals created the pre-election period at all—to recognize when the election truly starts. It's not when the writ drops.
If I'm reading the language correctly, this restriction here is on businesses whose primary purpose in Canada during an election period is to influence electors during that period. If there is any contemplation of foreign influence playing a role in our elections—which there ought to be, considering recent examples in the U.K., the U.S. and others—I suppose this one falls within the scope of “Try it”.
Someone may attempt to strike it down in court, but the intention seems pretty straightforward. We've already essentially broken the seal on the pre-election notion with this whole bill. Voters are at play in the pre-writ period. Why not restrict businesses whose sole purpose in the country—again, back to the legislative amendment line—is to try to influence voters? Those would be the ones I'd want to limit the most, frankly.
