As I indicated earlier this week before the ethics committee, the act doesn't approach the issue in that fashion. It basically says what a contribution is, and it allows for commercial transactions to be carried out by parties. And that's the analysis that's going to be done by the commissioner, whether there was a fair market value transaction in relation to allegations of sponsorship or advertising that occurred during certain conventions.
Again, because the act is relatively clear and it's the facts that can complicate matters, if the committee wants to consider it, the alternative would be to altogether prohibit sponsoring or advertising or any other type of transaction where third parties would be seen as funding various aspects of a convention. How broad should that prohibition be extended? I think it raises important issues for consideration of the committee.