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

[Anne Lawson, General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada]

[Inaudible—Editor] the minister and the ticket price—

[Stéphane Perrault]

And the ticket price, of course.

What is not captured by this bill is when there is no prior condition to attend in terms of paying. That is a deliberate policy choice, because that defines the nature of this legislation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, it's getting us partway there.

All right, let me ask this question. Were you consulted on the development of Bill C-50?

[Stéphane Perrault]

We did have information that was made available simply to look at our planning assumptions, but there was no consultation in terms of whether this was a good or bad proposition. That is perfectly normal in the course of these kinds of legislation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, it's normal if you're going back to the last Parliament, but it's not so much normal if you go back in the history of how this thing should be done.

On privileged access—this subject matter—are you aware of how this regime would compare to any other existing regimes in terms of its effectiveness?

[Stéphane Perrault]

The only one I know of that I can compare it to is the Ontario provincial regime. I understand that the committee may be hearing from Mr. Essensa.

The Ontario regime is much stricter. Whether or not that's a desirable thing I think is for the committee to consider. In the Ontario example, there's an outright prohibition on attendance. My understanding is that's for any candidate, member of Parliament, or a leader. That is very sweeping. Even independent candidates are prohibited from attending any fundraiser where there's an entry price, and there are no thresholds. It's sweeping in its scope, and it's quite restrictive in the nature of the fundraisers.

I understand there's a bill being considered, Bill 152, to exempt party conventions, which were not exempted. Any time you have party conventions and they have contributions, then party leaders are not allowed to attend. I think Mr. Essensa can better inform the committee on the problems that this causes.

That's why I think when I made my remarks, I said that this bill is carefully calibrated. I think it's based on some experience in the Ontario context.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You use those words and we'll use other words, but I hear what you're saying. You're doing your job exactly the way you should do it.

In terms of that comparison, are there any international comparisons?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Not that I'm aware of. We have one of the strictest regimes internationally in terms of contributions and spending. This is a very restrictive regime. When you travel and you speak to other jurisdictions, or when they come to visit, they're always surprised at the extent of the restrictions we have on fundraising and expenses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Listen, I've done election observation missions in—I'm not going to name it—a country where the election commission takes out ads to wish the president a happy birthday. There is a wide, vast gap in terms of these regimes.

Chair, how much time do I have? It can't be much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have three seconds.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I have, like, none. I'll save it for the next round.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham, s'il vous plaît.

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

I must build on the opposite extreme from Mr. Nater's point earlier. If you're having an event, you're organizing an event, and you announce that the minister of something-or-other is going to come, or a leadership event candidate is going to come, and it then goes forward, but that person never shows up, is it captured?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Well, it's certainly captured in terms of the notice. I think, after the fact, if the event is cancelled, effectively—

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

Well, the event happens, but the guy just doesn't show up.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Well, it's no longer a regulated event within the meaning of the bill, so my instinctive reaction—and I'd have to look at it carefully—is that, if it doesn't meet any of the conditions, no matter what the notice said, then there would not be a requirement to report. Of course, all the contributions would be reported afterwards.

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

Right.

If a leadership race is finished—for example, we saw one finish yesterday or two days ago—but a candidate still has debt, that defeated candidate who is having the event is still technically a leadership candidate. Is he captured in this even though his leadership race is over?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Absolutely.

If there is a fundraiser that meets the three conditions, then it would be captured if it's organized for the benefit of an affiliated political entity, and a leadership contestant is one of them. It would be caught by the proposed rules, on the assumption that this bill were enforced, of course, in your scenario.

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

Okay. Should anyone else be captured who hasn't been captured in this bill?

[Stéphane Perrault]

Not that I can foresee, no.

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

So the opposition finance critic is out. You're lucky.

This is just an edge case, because I've been doing a lot of edge cases. Just for the sake of argument, let's say I'm having a fundraiser in my riding, and an opposition leader happens to live in my riding, as was the case until two days ago, and he happened to show up at my event. Would that be captured? That is somebody who meets the requirements, but he isn't in my party.

[Stéphane Perrault]

That's an interesting hypothetical. I think the spirit of that legislation—and, again, I would examine the words carefully—is that it would not be captured even though technically the words “leadership contestant” are not restricted to the leader of the party hosting the event.

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

Okay, fair enough.

You mentioned that you would like us to revisit the exemptions for a convention. Do you want to go into any more depth on that? What would you like to see us discuss?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think members of the committee have a better sense than I do in terms of the practical realities of these conventions and the fluidity of attendance. I note that the act contemplates that, if there's a ticketed fundraiser within a convention that it has captured, it meets those definitions. I'm not sure why the practical considerations that go into the donor appreciation event don't go the same way with the fundraiser. That's one thing.

I also don't know if in practice it may be difficult to distinguish between a donor appreciation event and a fundraiser. If somebody wanting to take part in a donor appreciation event that is held every year at the annual party convention makes a large contribution, say, the full maximum amount, a week prior to the convention, is that a donor appreciation event or is that a condition, a payment, to attend a meeting?

I'm assuming good faith here, of course, but there may be situations where it's not perfectly clear how to distinguish one from the other. I think the committee, with the experience of its members, would be better positioned to look into that and see whether the lines are drawn at the right place.

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

In my campaign, my most successful fundraising event was a pay-what-you-can-afford event. I have a very poor riding, and it was pay what you can afford. There was no price set to it. Some people paid $20 and some people paid $400, and I had somebody who would now be captured at that event. Now, because I have no price, the moment somebody has paid $200, does it become captured, even though it wasn't a condition?