Again, I certainly wouldn't purport to offer advice to a standing committee of the House that hasn't begun its clause-by-clause on what amendments, in the judgment of the committee, would be appropriate to pass, but I do share your concern.
Maybe Mr. Sutherland has more technical experience than I would have in terms of the origin of this particular measure, but these particular elements of the bill were specifically to ensure that unions or other third parties—we're focusing on unions, but other third parties—that can participate in communications with their members in an election have obligations under the act to register. I think it's important that there be transparency in terms of what unions would be doing in terms of third party spending—advertising—and in terms of communicating with their members.
I think the concern was around not having a foreign actor use a particular union or other third party participant in the election as a front to inappropriately or illegally interfere in the Canadian election.
There's a long history of unions participating in the democratic process, which is something we support. We would certainly share the concern that you have expressed and that union leaders would express around not inadvertently restricting what is a long-standing practice of unions being able to participate in the election.
However, it has to be done in a transparent way, so that foreign money wouldn't flow to a union or.... It's not one of the big unions that you mentioned, which might have been at this table. They're long-standing, reputable organizations that have existed for a long time. I think the concern may be around a smaller group that would suddenly.... We've seen it with respect to the earlier conversation around some Russian influence.
One has to be careful to ensure there's transparency and rigour, but in no way would we seek to limit what has been a historical right for them to participate in an electoral process—unions or other third parties—and we think that's a good thing.