Thank you all for being here at short notice. We realize the complications we're adding to your lives and for your presentations.
I guess the underlying concern that I think all of us have is that we ensure there aren't undue advantages or there aren't ways around contribution limits and practices through the use of loans. That's the general intent of the act, and I think we all support that.
Our concern is the unintended consequence of frustrating a person's ability, compared to another person's ability who may have greater means to actually participate in the process, or of frustrating everybody from effectively taking part in the process by making it too stringent.
Mr. Hébert-Daly, you mentioned that Vancity had mentioned to you—and that's a very helpful transmission—that they would look at situations a little more flexibly than in normal loan transactions. You mentioned particularly that they would look at the rebate potential. Of course, to get a rebate you have to be a candidate and you have to reach a certain threshold. That doesn't help someone in a nomination contest or perhaps in a leadership contest.
I'm wondering, from you and from the others, in a much more focused way than your presentations, which raised some real concerns, both with the misuse of loans but also with the constraints of unintended consequences, potentially, of this, if there is a case to exclude nominations from this process, or is that a sufficient fear? I think one side or the other of it could be that nomination contests don't really cost that much, or shouldn't, compared to leadership processes, for instance.
I'd like you each to just focus, if you have a comment, on the unintended consequence that you most fear from this legislation, perhaps starting with Mr. Hébert-Daly.