Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the parent motion, I am very supportive of this, but I wanted to address a concern here. The mover of the motion addressed the rationale behind the caps that were set in this motion. The first cap is at 50 percent of eligible personal election expenses, and the next cap is the maximum rebate of $3,000. I think that these kind of expense returns are really important to an effective participatory democracy. It levels the playing field for all candidates. What the motion contemplates is not the methodology around how exactly the rebates will be calculated, which I think is important. Really, what this motion speaks to is establishing a rebate and setting out some hard caps for that rebate.

However we want to figure that out, that is fine. I think a 50 percent cap is sufficient, and it levels the playing field across the board. I think $3,000 is probably too low to really impact the state of play in the seven Yellowknife ridings. Typically, incumbents can muster much more financial resources to support their re-election, and furthermore, candidates who can muster the range of finances you need to run a campaign with full advertising, with full election signs, that can run you anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000. That is to be competitive and in particular with incumbents.

I think having a rebate in place allows potential candidates and particular challengers to handle a lot of their upfront costs, knowing that they will get a return on that at the end of the day. I think that is really important because right now, a lot of fund raising happens after the writ is dropped. It is kind of "Let's close the gap." This just takes the pressure off and allows candidates to do what they really need to: focus on running and focus on reaching out to voters and on honing their ideas to be more effective.

I support the motion in principle. I just think it is too restrictive and doesn't represent the maximum benefit that could really be put out there. I think if we enrich this rebate, it is going to have better results and it is going to maximize the impact, in particular for women candidates and for all candidates in general and provide much needed levelling of the playing field for challengers to successfully mount campaigns against incumbents. Rather just speak to my concerns of the initial motions and vote for it, because I do support the motion, I wanted to take the step to bring forward an amendment to represent what I think will be an improvement to what the committee is asking for. I appreciate the work that has gone into it. I appreciate the calculations. I just have a difference of opinion and would like to resolve it by putting this question to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.