Thank you.
My impression is that maybe, responsibly, our security establishment, when asked the question, “How can you constructively engage with us as a political party to identify if there is a fundraiser or a candidate that's a problem?”, the response back would be that there has to be a very high level of certainty that there is a problem before our security establishment will defame an individual.
I respect that. That is the standard at law, but I wonder if you as legislators should be exploring if there is a lower standard in these specific circumstances. I'm confident that, after going through all the security clearances and things that we had gone through, if we were told that it's better for us to at least be watchful around this fundraiser or around this candidate, I think that we as a political party—and I'm confident, all the political parties—would be far more responsive.
The bigger issue, Madame, though, is the attitudinal issue. It is that we, as participants in the political process, understand that we are in the vote-getting and fundraising business. I'm not sure that our security establishment fully appreciated that. That was my impression. That was my fear. In their view, it was, “It's not really altering the election. Is it that big of a deal? Maybe somebody's amplifying some statements". The answer is, of course it is, because Michael Chong is a brave man. Not everybody is. I don't want our legislators to have to be brave in order to succeed. They can succeed. They should succeed by putting forward what they think is the best legislative policy.