Take, for example, the by-elections held in Saint-Lambert and Westmount—Ville-Marie. The government called 2 by-elections 30 days before calling a general election. Thirty days later, it called a general election. The government did not fall. It called 2 by-elections, and 30 days later, it superseded them at the very last minute. Advance voting had even taken place. There seems to have been some inconsistency there. I think the government knew full well that it was going to call a general election 30 days before it did so. It could have simply called by-elections with 45 days' notice. That way, taxpayers' money would not have been spent and wasted on an event that was superseded practically the day before the election.
Under those circumstances, why should the candidate or party be penalized for raising 40%, say, of the election spending limit and be reimbursed for just 60% of those expenditures, even though the election was superseded?
I think that Elections Canada's decision to reimburse 100% of the actual expenses incurred, in the case of Saint-Lambert and Westmount—Ville-Marie, levelled the playing field for the nominations in those ridings, as compared with all the others. They had absolutely nothing to do with the government's decision to call a by-election, to supersede that by-election and to call a general election, all within a period of some 30 days.