First, on the issue of the analysis, I have seen my officials do some partial analysis of some of the issues, province by province. I don't think we have all the provinces and I don't think we have all the issues. For example, I can't tell you what the trailing debt is for other provinces, other than in my own experience, because that hasn't been analyzed.
Certainly I would be happy to undertake on their behalf that we have done and provide to the committee analysis of what the loan treatment is, which mostly has been done, but also of such things as trailing debt, which has not been done.
The second aspect of it was about whether candidates for leadership and nomination are regulated in other provinces. Leadership candidates, for example, in Ontario are covered by the electoral disclosure and financing laws. I don't believe the nomination candidates are, however, in Ontario, but of course nomination candidates are now covered by the federal law; they have their spending limits and their contribution limits determined by federal law. What we're trying to do here is provide consistency across all the different kinds of candidates who are regulated.
I believe this has the added benefit of addressing the concern Karen Redman raised about candidates for nomination with lesser means: that they end up on the same level playing field with wealthier individuals and better able to compete.
In fairness, the spending limit—the 20% of what you can spend in a campaign—is probably the greatest element in ensuring that a level playing field applies, and of course it's already in the law.