Before I do, I'll pick up on another point Mr. Owen raised, that those who don't have the backing of a wealthy riding association can't run. Riding associations cannot transfer funds to leadership campaigns already. If they're doing that, they're engaging in an illegal practice under the act. So that's not a factor.
On the question of nominations, again I think we have the same phenomenon. I'd remind everybody that nomination campaigns are already strictly regulated under the act. The spending limit is strictly regulated. It's 20% of the spending limit of an actual campaign for that riding. From that perspective, you already have the playing field levelled. Those restrictions come from the legislation that Mr. Owen referred to previously.
You're talking about a typical campaign in a big riding limiting somebody to spending $14,000 or $16,000. That's the most you can spend on a nomination, so already you have very limited potential.... To say that putting everybody on a level playing field so they can't reach in to find their own $15,000 and that they have to borrow it from a bank and so on.... I don't buy that notion that there is any barrier there. Again, this is something that puts everybody on the same level playing field.
There is some suggestion that women have a more difficult time raising money as candidates. I'm not sure I agree with that. They will now be on a level playing field with everybody else in terms of being able to run a campaign. They won't be able to rely on a rich, powerful person to come up with that $14,000, or, if you're in a riding in Saskatchewan, the $9,000 or $10,000 you can spend on a campaign for a nomination.
I think the effect of what we've done here will create greater fairness and put everybody on the same level playing field.