Ms. Jennings reminded me, and rightfully so, that Mr. Poilievre seems to have forgotten that Bill C-24 has been in force for two years now, and that the wealthy, companies and unions are not allowed to make contributions to political parties. Bill C-2 also deprives them of that right. This amendment does not give them that right either. We have to be careful about the kind of message we're sending out. You have three reasons for proposing these conditions: Liberal, Liberal and Liberal. You are not motivated by political reasons or by a desire to achieve transparency.
If you go with the Quebec model, it's all or nothing. During the 1970s, when the Elections Act was adopted in Quebec, a contribution ceiling was set at $3,000. That amount has not been indexed since 1976 or 1977 and it applies only to individuals. I don't have a problem with the $2,000 limit. I'm not asking that it be set at $3,000. You yourself agreed to let Pierre-F. Côté testify before the committee. We heard that 99 per cent of all contributions are under $200. Consequently, I don't have a problem with applying cost-of-living indexation to certain legislative provisions, as is done in Quebec.
Mr. Poilievre often raises this matter and I'm curious to know how many cases of serious fraud have been reported in Quebec, where the ceiling is set at $3,000 for individuals. To my knowledge, no cases have been reported in 30 years. Therefore, I don't see a problem with increasing the limit from $1,000 to $2,000. If someone were to donate $999 to my campaign, I would be no more obligated to vote in favour of bank mergers or the CRTC than I would be if that person had given me $1,500. This argument doesn't wash, but when you're desperate, you grasp at straws.