On our side, we may have agreed to the study, but it doesn't mean that we have to agree to the amendment.
The motion is to be amended by adding, before the words “all documents related to any audit”, the following: “And, as requested by the committee in its Report No. 27 asking the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation”.
It's really concerning to me, as it's been mentioned by a number of my colleagues here, how it doesn't protect CRA officials. It doesn't protect individuals. All documents related to the audit by the committee.... That's a lot. I'm sure these hard-working public servants, when they took on the job, would have never expected to anticipate being asked to break the law.
Then there are the concerns of other charities that accept donations. This amendment targets a specific charity and its donors. Do we really want to open this line of examination? I think we're going down a rocky path there. There are many other charities that could be examined and with that, there are many other donors. Is this really the direction we want to go in?
What about the examination of donors who supported the freedom convoy? I question the motives for these donors and how they influence our politics. We all remember that time. It was quite something to hear from the various news sources how so many donations came from the U.S. Certainly the dollar amount donated by Canadians was quite a lot too. I'm sure that they would also not want their names revealed.
This would lead us to open doors to all sorts of organizations, which Mr. Fragiskatos has already mentioned, like the gun organizations. I just feel that we really have to think about this amendment and what it represents.
Thank you.