Thank you, Chair.
I was going to go along the line of questioning that Chris has already taken, and that's the repayment of leadership loans and the like. I don't know if this would be a correct term or not, but it appears to be kind of a loophole if four years later there are still unpaid loans. And every party goes through leadership campaigns. The NDP is engaged in one now.
So I think we need some finality on that. I'm glad to hear you agree with that, and I think we have to deal with that as a committee.
But another issue that's in the media right now that we actually raised—which I would consider to be a loophole—is the issue of what occurred at the last NDP convention, where there were some union contributions but on a sponsorship level. Ostensibly they said it was for advertising, and I know advertising is supposed to be fair market value and all of that. I also understand this issue was discussed at the ethics committee at which you appeared recently. Your response was that it is before the Commissioner of Canada Elections. So I understand all that.
I'm asking you your opinion, sir, whether you think that what occurred at the NDP convention, regardless of what happens with the ruling from the Commissioner of Canada Elections, would be the type of loophole that should be closed? Obviously whether it's ostensibly an advertising payment or a sponsorship, it's a lot of money and it goes to the bottom line of the party that organizes that convention. It helps pay their bills.
I would certainly suggest that looks to me like a contribution. Now, what is your opinion on that?