Evidence of meeting #71 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was 200.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stéphane Perrault  Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Anne Lawson  General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Hello everyone.

Welcome to the 71st meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is a public meeting.

Today we are continuing our study of Bill C-50, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing).

The two witnesses are from Elections Canada: Stéphane Perrault, acting Chief Electoral Officer, and Ms. Anne Lawson, general counsel and senior director, legal services. Thank you for being here.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Perrault so he can give his presentation.

11 a.m.

Stéphane Perrault Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to be here today to speak to Bill C-50. I will try to keep my remarks brief to leave as much time as possible for questions from the members.

Bill C-50 has two main elements, both related to political financing. The first element is a new regime for reporting on certain fundraising events. The second element is more technical and relates to correcting a long-standing problem regarding the regulation of leadership and nomination campaign expenses and contributions. I will speak to each aspect in my remarks, but will focus primarily on the first component of Bill C-50.

I have also distributed a table containing a few technical amendments for the committee's consideration for the better administration of the proposed provisions in this bill.

The first element in Bill C-50 is a new regime for reporting on regulated fundraising events. The requirements for disclosing information and reporting apply only to certain fundraisers. To fall within the scope of the bill, a fundraiser will need to have all of the following three elements. First, it must be organized for the benefit of a party represented in the House of Commons or one of its affiliated political entities. Second, the fundraiser must be attended by a leader, a leadership contestant, or a cabinet minister. Third, it must be attended by at least one person who has contributed over $200 or who has paid an amount of over $200, part of which includes a contribution, as a condition for attending the fundraiser event.

In this regard, I note that the bill offers a calibrated approach. Not all parties will be subject to the new requirements and I believe that is a good thing. Similarly, the rules will not apply to all fundraising activities, but only those for which a minimum amount is charged to attend and where key decision-makers are also present.

There is also an important exception for party conventions, including leadership conventions, except where a fundraising activity takes place within the convention. The convention itself is exempted, but if there's a fundraiser that meets all the conditions within the convention, then that is caught by the new rules. Again, this reflects a concern to achieve a proper balance and I think it is wise.

However, I note that donor appreciation events held at party conventions will be exempted from the proposed rules. I understand that this reflects a concern with regard to the fluidity of attendance at such events and practical difficulties in applying the rules. This is something that the committee may wish to examine.

In order to improve transparency, Bill C-50 provides for two types of disclosure to be made with respect to regulated fundraising events. First, a notice of such events must be prominently posted on a party’s website at least five days prior to the event. Second, a report must be provided by the party. Even if the fundraiser is made for the benefit of affiliated entities, it is the party that must provide the report to the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of the fundraiser. This report must include details of the fundraiser, including the names and partial addresses of attendees, and the names of any organizers of the event. There are some exceptions to protect the privacy of people working at the event or underage persons who may be attending.

These disclosures would vary during a general election. Notice of a regulated fundraising event would not be required and a single report for all fundraising events held during a general election would be due to the CEO within 60 days after polling day. In practice, this may prove to be a tight timeline. There are clauses for extensions, but I think that we’ll see over time whether that 60-day period is a good balance.

Generally speaking, the bill increases the transparency of political fundraising, which is one of the main goals of the Canada Elections Act. It does so without imposing an unnecessary burden on the smaller parties that are not represented in the House of Commons or for fundraising events that do not involve key decision-makers.

That said, I am proposing a number of minor and technical amendments to improve the administration of Bill C-50.

First, as parties are required to publish notices on their website of fundraisers covered by Bill C-50, I would propose that parties be required to also notify Elections Canada of such a publication. This will assist Elections Canada in administering the Act and in ensuring that the reports to be submitted 30 days later are indeed submitted.

Second, so that the bill more closely mirrors current authorities in the Canada Elections Act for other reports, I am recommending that the CEO be permitted to request, in writing, substantive corrections and revisions to reports submitted after a regulated fundraising event.

Consideration should also be given to adding an offence for filing a false, misleading, or incomplete report so as to bring this bill in with other components of the existing regime for financial returns.

I will now turn briefly to the second element of Bill C-50, which deals with the definitions of leadership and nomination campaign expenses in the Canada Elections Act.

This aspect of the bill responds to a recommendation made by Elections Canada and recently unanimously endorsed by this committee. The purpose of this change is to ensure that all expenses and contributions made in relation to leadership and nomination contests are regulated.

Not surprisingly, Elections Canada supports these proposed changes. The current definitions are not aligned with the goals of the act and are difficult for both nomination and leadership contestants to understand and comply with.

There is, however, an amendment that is contained in our table of amendments and that I would recommend be made to this part of the bill. It is essentially meant to ensure that only expenses and contributions in relation to leadership and nomination campaigns are captured by the new definitions and by the rules on expenses and contributions.

I would say, respectfully, that there was an unintended broadening of the definition and that the wording of the definition needs to be clarified.

That is all I have to say. Thank you.

I would of course be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bittle, you have seven minutes.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today.

Could you describe for us our current political financing regime and how it's regarded worldwide?

11:05 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I've had the pleasure of speaking across different jurisdictions in Canada and abroad about our political financing regime. I've never said it was perfect, but I do honestly believe it is one of the better calibrated regimes that I've seen. I certainly would not envy any other regime taken as a whole.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

In your report after the election you made a recommendation that there be administrative and monetary penalties regimes in order to help with enforcement. Would such a regime help with the enforcement of the provisions in Bill C-50?

11:05 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I think that's a very good point. The rules that we have here today for review by this committee are a good example of what I call a regulatory regime. This is not the stuff of criminal law.

Certainly I would hope that if there was a regime for administrative monetary penalties, this regime would apply to these kinds of rules, because these are exactly the types of rules that AMPs, as we call them, are best suited to assist in ensuring compliance.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

I'm sorry I didn't have much time to go over the chart that you provided, but on that point on the criminal law, in terms of clause 9 and your recommendations there, offences could also be added requiring intent. For curiosity's sake, are there offences within the Canada Elections Act that require proof of intent, which is more of a criminal standard rather than a regulatory standard that only requires the guilty act rather than the guilty mind?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

For most of the political financing rules in the act when there's a requirement or a prohibition, there's both an offence created that we call a negligence offence or a due diligence offence, which does not require intent but only requires that the person exercise due diligence, but there is also a parallel offence in many cases requiring intent. So depending on the circumstances and the nature of the conduct, then either may be used.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been any successful prosecutions that you're aware of of individuals who showed intent?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I would have to go back, but I believe that's the case, yes.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Many fundraisers offer a chance to buy a table's worth of tickets. In that case, some donors may donate much more than the single ticket price. However, in that practice, they have actually purchased a number of tickets and could invite a number of guests. For example, there could be a $50 fundraiser where donors are invited to buy a table for $500. Based on your reading of Bill C-50, would that option, the option to buy 10 tickets for $500, trigger the new regime, assuming a designated politician was in attendance?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

As long as part of the $500 includes a contribution, so assuming the benefit received is not the full amount, then it would trigger the new rules. All participants present would be disclosed as part of the regime, not only the purchaser of the tickets.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Bill C-50 contains a number of exemptions to the reporting requirements, predominantly for those who are executing the fundraising event. However, it's not clear if a personal support worker for an attendee would also be exempted if they attended in the course of their employment. Would you support an exemption for people like a personal support worker who may be present at the fundraiser in support of someone who has paid to attend, so in terms of an accessibility piece?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I think that would make sense, of course. I would support that.

I just want to come back to my first answer, because I may have misled the committee. I'm thankful for—

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

There was no intent, I'm sure, to go back to the original....

11:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

The trigger is having been required to pay at least $200, so I believe in terms of the tickets, independent of the number of tickets bought, if buying at least one ticket of over $200 is required, then that would be caught. But if the amount of the ticket that is required to attend is under $200, or is $200 and less, then it would not be triggered.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

In terms of the personal support worker, that's a...?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

It seems like a very reasonable element to add to the bill, yes.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Sorry, when you did your correction, did that change the table of $500?

11:10 a.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

Yes, exactly. With a table of $500, if it's 10 tickets of $50, none of the tickets in order to attend are over $200, so my reading is that this would not trigger.... If any of the tickets are more than $200, then that would trigger the application of the rules.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

Mr. Nater.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today.

I want to follow up on that last point. Multiple tables can be sold for $500, but as long as the requirement was $50 per ticket, it would not trigger the reporting premise. The prime minister could attend a $50-ticket event and multiple people could buy $500 tables, but it would not trigger the requirements then?