I wanted to ask whether or not the Prime Minister would be bound to accept a candidate. It struck me when I was reading the legislation that, if you do not have limits on financing—how it's done and the role of third parties—you could have an activist group decide that they were going to have a vote-in campaign for a person. Greenpeace or Right to Life could decide it. They could get all their members to chip in money. They could ask $100 or $500 from their massive organizations to get this person in, because the person has similar political views.
It would be fairly easy to raise enough money to be heard across a vast region. You could end up getting your right-to-life or anti-sealing candidate elected. Technically, it's democratic. But a system should be set up with financial limits so that people within a particular region, or within a particular group, are able to compete fairly. Do you see that there's a backdoor problem here with third-party intervention and the ability to raise unlimited funds?