It has come up. There seems to have been very limited coverage. If you're looking for media coverage of it, you normally find it mentioned as a subsidiary item in articles about how—because we're a collegial committee here, I always want to put these things in non-partisan terms—it has been suggested that it's inappropriate that there be cash for access fundraisers, or at least that's how they're characterized. The minister is present. You pay something close to the maximum allowable contribution and then have the opportunity to have some face time with the minister. That's the practical impact of those. The government has been responding to it and saying it's taking action.
The Liberal Party on its own has said that it is now going to make public about 48 hours in advance, I think, where the events are occurring: the dates, times, and locations of any meetings at which this kind of interaction is taking place. That's what gets the coverage—their response—but sort of hidden in the middle of the article will be something else about the minister saying that she intends to introduce legislation to deal with this. Typically, further up in the article, it's mentioned that they won't be changing this contribution limit, which is obviously one of the ways in which it has been suggested one could deal with this issue. She mentioned in a fairly recent article about a week ago that the intention was to introduce that legislation this spring.
I was quite surprised by that. It was actually drawn to my attention by our party's chief fundraiser, who said, “Hey, what's up with this?” He phoned up and said that I was her critic so I was to find out whether that was happening. Former senator Irving Gerstein was the one who called me. I actually told him, “Irving, it's not happening in the spring, but look, I'll go and confirm it with the minister.” I went over to her desk and asked her, and she said, “Oh, yes, it's this spring.” Then she reminded me of an earlier meeting where she had told me. I had simply misheard. It hasn't received much publicity, but it is intended for this spring, absolutely.
At first I thought it seems precipitous and hasty, and then I thought it through and realized that to get this piece of legislation through so that it has royal assent by December 31, given the fact that the schedule over in the other place does not always move with alacrity, I actually can see why she would want to have it in the House and, for that matter, entirely through this House by the end of June.
There are other scenarios I can imagine. I have thought of this. In fact, I was going to raise this. It's not in the letter, but it's a good question that all of us on this committee have to think about, which is, given the amount of material we have before us, whether we're going to have to consider having this committee sit during the summer. Now, that doesn't deal with every issue. It doesn't deal with something that has to go through this committee and then back into the House by June.
If, for example, her goal, and I'm not saying this is her goal.... Well, let's take Bill C-33 as an example. I think it is her goal to have Bill C-33 through this committee, back in the House, and then through third reading in the House by the end of the spring. I haven't asked her that, but I assume that's her intention. Maybe it's the House leader I should ask.