I think it's certainly an idea that warrants a fair bit of consideration, and I see arguments two ways. Since you're obviously well acquainted with the arguments for doing away with it, I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little, because I'm really of two views on this. We do have a provision like this under Ontario provincial law, and have had for the past 20 years, that the riding association assume the debt of the campaign. One thing that permits is for the campaign to close its books fully and absolutely and transfer its assets or liabilities to the riding association. If I put on a different hat for a moment, I'll tell you why I think that's a good thing in some cases.
I'm also Ontario campaign co-chair for our party in the next election, and I'm involved in recruiting candidates and individuals who have nice lives and have great skills that we'd like to turn towards the public good and Parliament. They sometimes say, “But if I do this, what kind of financial risk am I taking”? And you're asking individuals—and some of you have gone through this, no doubt—to assume the potential of a long-term debt. If things don't go well—and sometimes you don't see it coming, but sometimes you do—and all of a sudden you didn't do nearly as well as you thought, either with fundraising or electorally, and therefore with your rebate, then there's a debt. If the riding association is going to endorse a candidate, which is the process we engage in, then maybe at the end of the day it's not inappropriate for the riding association to absorb that liability.
On the other hand, if you have a renegade candidate, it means you have a lot of other problems on your hands too.