I would make just a quick comment on this debate about $100 versus $1,550, which I think it is at the moment. The fact that there's a ceiling doesn't mean that anyone who wants to contribute to a political party has to get near that ceiling. They can give $100 or $200. The tax credit at the lower levels is so generous that giving a $400 or $500 contribution is actually quite feasible for people who are middle class. Lots of people do it.
I don't agree with Duff Conacher, who says that you should put the limits down to $100. Political parties need money. Candidates need money. Perhaps the upper limit is too high but, and I repeat, it doesn't force anybody to dig into their bank account to contribute at that level.
This is just a final word on Duff Conacher's testimony. He mentioned at a couple of points that he finds the current regime—he wasn't referring only to the $100 contribution limit—unethical and undemocratic. I don't feel that he demonstrated that in his presentation. I know he likes to make strong statements, and he has done a lot of good work to promote the development of our democracy. But when you make statements like that, you should be able to prove them. I don't believe that the proof is there.
We have a very healthy political finance regime. People come from all over the world to meet with Elections Canada, to learn about it. People read about it, and so on. It is cited, just as our Charter of Rights is cited, and our immigration system is often cited. I go abroad a lot and attend a lot of conferences.
We can always improve. That's what you're doing here today. I think we should also be fair about what we have achieved in this area and not say that it is unethical and undemocratic. That's going way too far.