Yes, that would be very helpful. I think that would overcome this kind of local problem that can arise.
Just to state the obvious, the rational purpose of both EDAs and parties is to get the person who won the nomination process elected. That should be what they do.
I raised a problem at the last meeting. You've mentioned some of this, but I would like your thoughts on this problem. In any given riding, you have some parties that are virtually guaranteed to get more than 10% of the vote and others that might or might not. Of course, politics is an unpredictable business, and there are members present in this very committee who did not expect to get more than 10% and wound up becoming the sitting member. That happened without the intervention of funds, but it could be that funds play a role in launching a winnable campaign.
Whenever one makes a commercial loan, one has to take into account the risks involved. It would be hard for an institution, especially one that is actually required to use commercial rates and to demonstrate that commercial rates were applied, not to wind up applying criteria that would cause them to loan to different candidates at different rates. I think that after the fact this would be perceived by many people, despite all the goodwill the institutions are presumably having, as representing some kind of preference one way or the other, so much so that if I were in a situation of running a financial institution, I would give instructions not to loan to anybody because I would not want to face the consequences after the fact of the appearance, invalid though it may be, of preference in the political system.
Do you have any thoughts on that?