Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mayrand, thank you for coming this morning.
I'd like to go back to the initial purpose we're here for, separate from the lectures you've been receiving.
With regard to sponsorship and advertising, I come from a business background and so have been exposed to many galas and different charitable events. When you run a charitable event, you appeal to many hundreds and thousands of attendees and you establish your values on sponsorship based on your reach. The question is, what's that fair value? Obviously, it's what the market will bear.
The regulations, and the act itself, clearly were designed to ensure that undue influence was not exercised by any organizations, etc. We've seen the pictures. I can tell you from the pictures, for the numbers we're hearing, whether the range is $10,000, $20,000, or whatever it is—to Mr. Angus's comment, I don't know what the actual number is, but obviously it's 10, 20, 30 times the allowable limit—that I wouldn't have been able to get away with this in the private sector. This is not acceptable. I'm very concerned, from a fair value, how you establish the true reach, particularly when you only have a few hundred people who come to the convention.
The other side of that, on the advertising side—and I am coming to a question for you—is that in my market, in Toronto, our major newspapers will cost out for a full page advertisement anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000 a day. The objective is to reach hundreds of thousands of people. My concern is, as we look at this—and we've heard all of the comment—how you establish fair value versus undue influence when you're trying to get your hands around people who are circumventing, clearly circumventing, the rules, which exclude them in the beginning, as far as contributions go. How do you establish that fair market value?
I know you've said you have to refer to somebody, but I wonder if you can be a little clearer as to your perspective on it.