Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for being here today.
I'm sure there's at least one thing all of us around this table today can agree on. On page 4 of your comments, where you talk about the complexity of the bill relating to stakeholders, those providing loans, and Elections Canada, you left one group out. You've left out this committee, in terms of the concerns we have about the complexity of it.
I want to turn to page 6 of the English section of your comments, when you started speaking about avoidance. You say:
By limiting loans of more than $1,200 to financial institutions, the regime seeks to curtail the influence of individuals who finance political entities through loans, and to eliminate the use of loans as a means to skirt contribution limits.
Then you go on to say:
That being said, since the bill in no way affects credit sales, an individual could sidestep the new rules on loans by becoming a supplier of goods or services.
Just as an example, as a candidate, I could go to a printer and have him or her print $10,000 or $15,000 worth of collateral to use in my campaign, which would then, in effect, become a loan because it's not paid yet.
Is there not a simple way to simply include as an amendment that we could not allow suppliers to give direct goods to a candidate, that they have to give it to the EDA, or provide it to the EDA on credit, as opposed to providing it to the individual candidate? To me, it seems a simple fix.