I'd like to thank my colleague for his testimony today in regard to his amendment.
I would like to read into the record our opposition to this amendment for two particular reasons. We feel that, as we've heard from numerous witnesses, there would be a significant charter risk in doing this amendment. As when you were here, the CEO, in his appearance before our committee, said in addition to others that....
We'd like to just take a moment to quote Dr. Holly Ann Garnett, who was here:
I believe [it] to be an entirely reasonable balance between the principles of freedom of debate and freedom from foreign interference...for a few practical reasons.
These were her two reasons:
First, not all third parties are contribution-based organizations. They [must] use membership dues or the revenues of a corporation. Thus, the 10% rule seeks to ensure that these types of third parties are not pushed out of the electoral conversation and can engage in the debate with their own revenues.
Second, third parties do not register until the pre-electoral or electoral period in the current regime. Since elections can take place at largely any point in Canada, third parties must be allowed some [form of] flexibility to use their own funds in engaging in the electoral debate.
Given the quoted testimony from our witness, we will not be supporting CPC-2 or the other related amendments, CPC-3 or CPC-4.
I'd like to thank my colleague for his testimony today.