These are good points. I would differentiate the two. I think the first one is perhaps more properly aligned with the spirit of this bill. I think if it were to be amended to make sure that if there's no announcement of a minister or key decision-maker or a leader of a party, then that person could not attend unless it's set back five days and there's a notice. That, I think, would be within the scope and spirit of this piece of legislation.
The second scenario is somewhat different. This is a scenario where any ordinary Canadian, whether they have money or not, can attend; however, at that event some will make contributions, and in some cases, significant contributions. Now, whether or not that's a concern goes to the whole issue of contribution limits, but this is not a matter dealing with restricted access to key decision-makers. In that scenario anybody could have access to those decision-makers.
It's less a loophole than an issue definition problem, whereas the first one falls within the scope of this bill and perhaps could be corrected.