Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Stéphane Perrault]

No, it only becomes captured if it's a prior condition for attending. If one is required to pay over $200, then everything is captured. If people happen to be there who have made contributions, but were not required to do so, then it is not captured.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay.

You had suggested a number of amendments. Do you want to expand further on any of these amendments to provide clarity? At some point we have to actually turn these into amendment drafts, which aren't phrased like this.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Mr. Chair, I'm quite happy to do that. I have Madam Lawson here to assist as well. I know that there is perhaps more time. If the committee wants to go through each of these one by one, then we can do that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have almost two minutes.

You could start with Mr. Graham.

[Stéphane Perrault]

The first is one that I mentioned in my introduction. It's a prior notice to Elections Canada. We don't look on websites every day to see if notices come up. If we received a report 30 days later, we'd have to go back in time and verify whether there was proper notice. We also would not be in a position to encourage or remind the party that it has an obligation to file a report. If we have the notice at the same time, then we can work with the party to make sure either that they file or that they get the extension that they need because they can't meet the timeline. I think it would be of great assistance. As I said, it could be simply an electronic email proving notice to Elections Canada. That's the first recommendation.

The second is in a situation where organizers who are not the party come to realize that the information they provided to the party is not accurate; it's missing names of attendees, for example. There is currently no obligation on them to inform the party of any change so that the party can make the corresponding change to the report. This amendment would ensure that anybody who is involved in the organization who becomes aware of any change in the information to be provided in the report passes on the information to the party, and that the party then makes the correction to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, I think we'll stop there. I know you have three more amendments, but I'm sure we'll get to them somewhere along here.

We'll go now to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions. The first relates to one of the two glaring loopholes that Mr. Nater has identified. The first loophole he identified clearly is the minimum five days' notice. For example, it's not advertised that the prime minister is going to be attending until maybe they make an amendment two hours before the event or something. The other one, of course, is this idea that there's no ticket price, but you show up and of course everybody is expected to give the $1,550 maximum donation. Now the prime minister can attend an event for which there isn't a $1,500 ticket price, but there is, if you know what I mean. You've already indicated to us that this would certainly be possible under this legislation.

The first of those glaring loopholes is the one I want to ask about.

Should the committee feel that it's appropriate to make an amendment so that it would be absolutely required—whether it's five days or whatever the minimum notice we would determine would be reasonable—that following that time you couldn't, for example, add the attendance of the prime minister or some other minister two hours prior to the event? How would the committee go about making that amendment?

[Stéphane Perrault]

These are good points. I would differentiate the two. I think the first one is perhaps more properly aligned with the spirit of this bill. I think if it were to be amended to make sure that if there's no announcement of a minister or key decision-maker or a leader of a party, then that person could not attend unless it's set back five days and there's a notice. That, I think, would be within the scope and spirit of this piece of legislation.

The second scenario is somewhat different. This is a scenario where any ordinary Canadian, whether they have money or not, can attend; however, at that event some will make contributions, and in some cases, significant contributions. Now, whether or not that's a concern goes to the whole issue of contribution limits, but this is not a matter dealing with restricted access to key decision-makers. In that scenario anybody could have access to those decision-makers.

It's less a loophole than an issue definition problem, whereas the first one falls within the scope of this bill and perhaps could be corrected.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The reason I chose to ask about the first one is I recognized the second one, although I will predict that we'll see fundraisers where the prime minister is in attendance where every person who is there is giving $1,550; they just weren't required to in order to attend.

Having said that, I recognize that I don't think there's a way to change that. I think that's just there. It will probably exist, but it shows why this legislation won't fix the problem. I don't think it can be amended. I think the first problem could be. You've identified how that might be possible, and I appreciate your doing that.

Let me ask you about the one amendment. It's more to try to understand it because I'm not sure. I'm reading the analysis on your sheet. It's the one about the leadership and nomination contest expenses. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to accomplish with it. When I read the analysis it indicates that it's talking about registered parties and candidates as different from nomination or leadership contestants. It's talking about one entity spending money to promote another so they can get around the expenses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Blake, which one of the five—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's the last one.

What I'm understanding there is, it's almost sounding as if this would be intended to deal with where a party or a registered candidate was promoting a nomination contestant or a leadership contestant, which I find a fairly unlikely scenario. Is that what you're trying to deal with, or am I misunderstanding this?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It's the reverse scenario. It's not a factual problem, I think it's a drafting problem. If you look at proposed section 476.02, it's for a nomination contest. It's mirrored in the leadership contest definition. The definition proposes that it capture, and I'll only read excerpts, any cost that “was incurred for or that was received as a non-monetary contribution“...“used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader, a nomination contestant or a candidate during a nomination contest”.

This is not a nomination contest expense. The only one that's relevant here is the expense incurred to promote the nomination contestant.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

What you're indicating here is this may be a way for a candidate to spend an extra 20% to get around the expenditure limit during an election campaign. Say a by-election was called and the nomination fell within the electoral period and therefore they could spend to promote themselves to the general public because they're the only nomination contestant. This would allow them to spend additional money over and above any of the other candidates in the election. Is that what you're getting at?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Not quite. What I'm getting at is that the definition captures all kinds of expenditures that have nothing to do with either a leadership contest or a nomination contest, which we're not intending to capture.

We would not read it that way. The definition was just borrowed from other provisions of the act. For clarity's sake, we would interpret this narrowly. I would recommend that we remove references to irrelevant entities.

A leadership campaign expense is a campaign expense that was incurred in relation to the leadership contest, not some other entity or event. Similarly for a nomination contest....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Tassi for five minutes.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again for your presence here today.

Getting back to the previous comment that you made with your second recommendation, is there some timing you would suggest with respect to that notice coming to Elections Canada?

[Stéphane Perrault]

The notice given to Elections Canada should be made no later than at the same time the notice is put on the website.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

If it's five days then it's five days, or whatever the case may be.

I'm pleased to hear you say that you refer to the purpose of this legislation, which relates to privileged access. We know this is the driving force behind it. You believe it's carefully calibrated. Do you think this legislation fulfills the purpose it was intended for?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think you'll be hearing from the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They may have separate views on that.

From my point of view, this is a bill that relates to political financing activities, but not as they impact on the fairness of the electoral process. They are not about the level playing field. They are not about fairness of the electoral process. They are about concerns over perceptions of privileged access to decision-makers.

This is somewhat outside the general scope of the Elections Act. It's caught here because these concerns arise in the context of fundraising events, so it's quite proper that it be in there, but from my point of view, as an administrator concerned with electoral fairness, it improves somewhat transparency. It is calibrated, and I can administer this, although I have some minor improvements that could be made.

From a conflict of interest or ethics point of view, this is something more for other witnesses to speak to.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Right, but essentially with respect to privileged access, this meets that objective.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It captures a number of key decision-makers, and it doesn't capture, by contrast, what I've spoken about in other jurisdictions. It doesn't capture people who are not key decision-makers, so, yes.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

With respect to the exemptions that are listed, and we heard the question previously raised with respect to the PSW, in terms of those who are required to be listed, do you think that exemption list is full?

Is there anyone there who you think should be exempted who doesn't currently appear on that list? PSW is perhaps one that you considered. Is there anyone to whom you would automatically extend that list?

[Stéphane Perrault]

When I looked at the list, it seemed complete to me. A point was made about adding...and I think it's a good point, but I do not see anything else missing.