You're absolutely right that it's correct.
I'm going to make another observation here. Again, this is more anecdotal; this is just me, going through a lot of returns, and not an actual numerical analysis. I think you would find that generally speaking the candidates who have engaged in taking loans to run their campaigns come from wealthier communities, wealthier ridings. They tend to be wealthier individuals themselves, and I think that's a reflection of this. People who come from constituencies of more modest income or who are financially challenged are much less likely to be engaging in the behaviour of taking out loans for their campaigns—the big loans from a wealthy individual: the $45,000 from somebody, or whatever. That just doesn't happen as much.
I think that's anecdotal evidence for the proposition you just made, that this levels the playing field and puts everybody in the same position. When I talk about the loans they take out right now, those are loans primarily from individuals: wealthy benefactors, family members, and so on. The bank loans tend to be at a more consistent level across the board.