In the interest of the graciousness you're seeing take place before your eyes, I think I'll leave some of the questions with respect to your system until the second round or until my colleagues may open.
I'd like to go back to some of the concrete proposals in the current bill that have been causing us some problems. I think your system may not necessarily solve these particular problems because they're at the level of guarantees, loans, and contributions, and the limits on those and how they interact.
One of the primary features of the bill is that we begin with the roughly $1,200 contribution limit that's already established in the law. We basically say that through a combination of guarantees, loans, and contributions, no given individual can guarantee or contribute in any given year more than that $1,200.
Monsieur Mayrand told us he thought that would be unworkable. There would be too much of a sliding scale in constantly having to figure out if a bank loan has been paid back, and then the guarantees are released whether or not loans have been paid back, etc. He suggested some kind of divorcing, so that there might be two streams. Possibly, if I understood him correctly, we might put loans and contributions in one stream, meaning you can either lend or contribute up to $1,200 for a fiscal year, or you can guarantee up to $1,200 for a year against a bank loan.
I'm wondering if you've given any thought to his testimony on that point. It was in fact the only point that he said was absolutely essential from a workability perspective. He also had other concerns, but he emphasized that one. Do you have any views on that?