Similarly, when the Bloc Québécois emerged, and when the Reform Party, to which I belonged, emerged in 1993, it would have been very hard, based on either history or predicted outcomes, to determine that these people would even win their 10% of the vote back. Yet they wound up winning. Sometimes you win with less than 50% of the vote. I first won with 38% of the vote. So things like that can occur.
The whole purpose of the new regime we're attempting to introduce, and it's part, of course, of the regime that started under Chrétien and continues today, is to take the money, or the special access some people have to money, out of politics so as not to advantage some over others. It seems to me that the nature of the unexpected, and the nature of the volatility of the system, may mean that inevitably, as we restrict access, we can wind up, once again, privileging those who have parties with established records. That is a very grave concern.
In Madame Latendresse's case, I think you won with almost no expenditures at all, or pretty close.
When you borrow money, it's with the expectation that the things you do with the money will actually cause you to win. There may be other seats where people would actually have lost because they couldn't have access to a competitive financial environment.
I throw all these things out as problems that occur to me. I'm looking to see if you have any insight as to whether they are real problems or whether you have solutions to them.