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

[Stéphane Perrault]

Correct. My understanding is this bill is meant to capture situations where, in order to attend one of these events where a key decision-maker is present, at least one person who's attending has had to pay over $200.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Would you recommend a change? In your learned opinion, would you want to see a change that the dollar value be added if someone pays over $200?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think that's for the committee to consider. I don't have a strong view on that. I think the purpose of the bill is to deal with situations where there's a concern over privileged access, and whether one of those situations, as you describe, that is currently not captured falls into that category, I think is something for the members to consider.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I want to follow up on one of your recommendations, and that is the notification to Elections Canada, as well as being published on a website. It's more of a comment, but I think that is a worthwhile suggestion. It makes sense that if Elections Canada is going to be regulating this there should be some notification requirement.

I want to follow up a little more on the five-day notification on a party's website. I brought this up when the minister was here last week. I'm thinking of a situation in which a long-standing event has been planned, tickets are over $200, but no individual who would trigger reporting requirements—the prime minister, a minister—is initially attending, and then, within that five-day period, whether it's two days in advance or one day in advance, a guest is added, and it could be the prime minister or a minister, within that short period of time.

How would you envision the act applying in that case? What would be the advertising requirements? How would that work, in your opinion?

[Stéphane Perrault]

From memory, I think that in a situation like that, any organizer of the event becoming aware of the presence of one of the, let's call them, key decision-makers who triggers the application of the rules, should give notice to the party so that the party, immediately upon receiving notice, may make any adjustments to the notice, or publish a notice as required.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Would you recommend any changes to that to deal with that in a different way, or do you think that's adequate, that simply within perhaps hours the changes are made online?

[Stéphane Perrault]

As I read the rules, I think they're adequate to deal with the situation. If there's a concern that I have not seen, then I am happy to hear about it. But it seems that there is flexibility there to deal with those situations.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

What about a situation in which an advertisement is sent out with simply the potential for special guests attending, with no names attached to it, and then those special guests are confirmed closer to the date? Do you see any way that the act would apply in that case? The implication is made that a minister or prime minister is attending, but no names are associated with that. Would that trigger any reporting requirements to pre-publish that?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think if the party or the organizer are aware, even though the identity of the person is not yet known, but they're aware that, let's call it, a decision-maker, is going to be present and advertise that as a component of the event, the party should provide the notice.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

In any situation where there is a strong likelihood or a strong potential that the prime minister or a minister is likely to attend, there should be some kind of notification given.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Certainly I think it would be prudent to do so.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

In a situation where the ticket price is under $200, let's say $150, and the prime minister or a minister is present at those events, would it be within the rules that further donations could be solicited at the event? It's $150 to attend the event, but then at the event there's a representative of the Laurier Club, for example, encouraging a maximum donation at that event. Would that be permissible within the current provisions of Bill C-50?

[Stéphane Perrault]

This bill does not seek to capture a situation where there is not a precondition of payment to enter. As I said, I think it's designed to capture what I would describe as “privileged access”, access that is limited to people who pay a meaningful amount. If there is not a requirement to make that contribution as a condition for attending, even though attendees may be encouraged to make contributions when they are there, then this is not meant to be captured within the purview of this bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

So there would be no reporting to Parliament after that.

[Stéphane Perrault]

There would be the reporting of the contributions as always, according to the normal rules.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

How would you foresee a situation in which there was an event, let's say a relatively small event, 10 people, and afterwards it came out that all 10 of those people made the maximum donation? In keeping with the spirit of disclosure, would you see any potential revisions that should be made to capture those situations, where there is no requirement but nonetheless every single person who attended made the maximum donation, or a large contribution?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I think disclosure is achieved already in terms of who's making contributions. What this adds is disclosure on the context around which such contributions are made.

Again, I think that would shift the purpose of the bill. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but the purpose of the bill is to aim only at the situation where there's a prior condition of making a certain contribution for attending.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I want to go back to one of the comments made by Mr. Bittle about misleading, false, and inaccurate reporting. As you see it right now, there is no provision within the act that would prevent a party or a riding association from simply filing a false report. There's nothing preventing that.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Correct.

There's a provision for failure to report. At some point, if it's so patently false, it may amount to a failure to report, but we get into shades of grey. I think other provisions in the act dealing with other kinds of financial reports make that distinction. First, there's an obligation to file, with an associated penalty if you don't file. Second, there's a separate obligation for the timeline. That's a recommendation that's in the table, to separate the obligation to file from the timeline. Third, there is a prohibition on providing false or misleading information.

I think it is preferable to separate all three, from a compliance and enforcement point of view. But in this case, only the first two are in the bill, actually. There is nothing about false and misleading information in this bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Great, thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for being here again. We do this so often, it's almost beginning to feel like family.

My apologies to the committee for being late. I have public accounts back to back during this sitting. I was in another building, so physically it was impossible for me to get here, but I'll do my best going forward.

I want to pick up where Mr. Nater was asking questions, because I thought that was an interesting line of thinking.

I probably need some edification on your part. I noticed that you're being very narrow, and I assume that's because this is a very narrow application. The idea is that if you know ahead of time that the minister of finance is going to be there, that's a draw card for you and you're going to pony up the money. This is meant to capture that so there is some kind of accountability.

However, Mr. Nater raised a very interesting scenario. There is no guest that is published, but there is a wink-wink, nod-nod that it would be worth your while to come by. Then they show up and lo and behold, coincidentally everybody there makes a maximum contribution. This is all Mr. Nater's thinking. I'm not taking credit for any of his thinking, but I'm chasing it down a bit.

What is to prevent that from happening? My understanding is that at that point, because it wasn't privileged access in any way, it would just be the usual reporting mechanism. It wouldn't be reported as an event that would normally come under the rubric of this subject.

I will leave that with you. Help me out.

[Stéphane Perrault]

Well, I think it depends on the facts.

The way you were aligning it was more of a situation where everybody knows that in fact the minister is going to be there but it's not laid out explicitly. That's a deceitful scenario. In that case, I would think that the party would be under the obligation to be truthful about that and make the disclosure, make the announcement in a transparent way.

That's a different scenario from an event where everybody is invited, whether or not they pay—and that's the second scenario that I think Mr. Nater was referring to—and they happen to meet a minister or a leader and they make a contribution. In that case, anybody is invited to be there and it's not an issue of privileged access.

I'm not sure exactly which scenario you were dealing with.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not either. That's why I'm asking you. That's why we have you here, to ask these kinds of questions.

[Stéphane Perrault]

In the case where a party intends to bring in a minister and suggests so in half words, I think certainly that is a scenario in which the party would need to disclose the relevant information ahead of time. That is captured by this bill.

What is not captured by—