Procedure and House Affairs committee  A few people donate more than that. One person has made a large donation in the past few years of $25,000. That's it. Most of them are small donors. We wouldn't even have to disclose them under the third party rules. You could go lower than $200 for the reporting. I don't think y

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It's been proven to work, and it makes it much fairer than it is now. All the parties rely on wealthy donors. Those people I'm sure have more influence. The current donation limit facilitates funnelling, which SNC-Lavalin did. It also facilitates bundling, lobbyists holding big f

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you. I'll just make one small response to that. Clinical tests around the world have shown that very small gifts change how people make decisions. For doctors and—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  If you applied the Access to Information Act to your offices, then I could request your communication logs and see whether you were calling back your big donors and fundraisers more often and more quickly than you are the people who didn't donate and didn't vote for you. The Acce

Procedure and House Affairs committee  You're saying the grants and contributions to third party groups?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think it's better to put it under a centralized commission with all sorts of fairness rules on who gets to participate, based on things like percentage of votes received in the last election, whether you have an MP in the House. Take away all that discretion. Having third part

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. It's based on the principle of one person, one vote. Why should anyone be allowed to use money, just because they have it, as a means to have greater influence? If you look at the stats, all the parties rely for a significant percentage of their funding annually and during a

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's where the per-vote funding should be restored, and it should only be a base. It should not be as high as it was, because some parties were receiving 60%, 70%, 80% of their funds through the per-vote funding. There should still be an incentive for parties to reach out to vo

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Sure. You could go lower.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, but much less compromised than now. Quebec has done it.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, the limits should all be looked at.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, and also the limits for parties.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. You don't have to limit it if a political finance system is democratic. The donation limit should be $100, or $200 at most. That's the amount that an average voter can afford. As in Quebec, the per-vote funding should be returned, because it was the most democratic part of t

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That was for financing. Do that with a $100 donation limit. You don't have to worry about the parties being able to spend more, because they won't have the money.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  A voter might see it who is not intended to see it in terms of the micro-targeting, not be happy with it, and report it to Elections Canada.