Evidence of meeting #74 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 event.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes. We can ask the officials if they find it defined well enough, but I believe it is. It states, “any person who attended the event solely to assist a person with a disability”. That's their only reason to be there, so they should not be on the list. They are solely there for that reason.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
All in favour? Opposed?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's go on to PV-1, which is Parti vert.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes.
I think, by the way, if I can make a parenthetical comment about this legislation and the conversation we are having around the table, that it really makes the case that we need to look at more public financing of campaigning—
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
—and reduce the stress around fundraising. I do hope that the minister will look at what Jean Chrétien had done with the initial campaign reform and look at per-vote subsidy again, because it's not like the Government of Canada doesn't subsidize political parties. It does it through rebates for donors. It does it through the rebate at the end of an election campaign. The more we publicly finance election campaigns, the less we have this problem of which donors are in the room when the minister is there, and cash for access.
I will go quickly, because I can't be two places at once. Mr. Chair, I am going to come back for my next amendment and I'm going to let you know that now. I hope I get back in time, but the Board of Internal Economy is open today for the first time to members who aren't part of the star chamber, so I really want to have a peek. I'm going to scoot out and come back.
That said, this is an amendment based again on the testimony of Jean-Pierre Kingsley. My amendment would have the effect of deleting proposed paragraphs 384.3(3)(b) and 384.3(3)(c), which say that people are not going to be reported if they are there solely in the course of their employment. Just to quote again from the points that Jean-Pierre Kingsley made, “There are staff members in the Canadian political system who are exceedingly important”—and I hate to say it, but I'm adding my own little subtext here—and who are sometimes considered more important to donors than elected MPs. He said:
There are staff members in the Canadian political system who are exceedingly important, and their attendance at an event [is something that] carries weight unto itself. So the automatic exclusion of those persons from being named, I think, turns us away from the purpose of the statute.
This is why my amendment would delete the exclusion of staffers from reporting requirements.
October 19th, 2017 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I understand what Ms. May is saying, but in my understanding, and perhaps we can talk to the analyst, this amendment would then include everyone who is there, so if there was an employee, a waiter, or a support staff person who was solely there for their employment purposes, their name would end up on the list.
I don't think that's what we want to accomplish here. Individuals who in the course of their employment are pouring wine or serving food would end up on a list to suggest they support a particular political party, which they may or may not in the course of their employment.
Liberal
Policy Advisor, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
Yes, that's the result. Persons employed in organizing the event, including waiters and media as well, would now be published.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
That was my observation too. If the Prime Minister attends an event, are his RCMP guards going to be included as well?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are we ready to vote?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go on to LIB-5. This will apply to a consequential amendment of LIB-8, whatever way the vote goes.
Go ahead, Mr. de Burgh Graham.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The amendment clarifies the event organizer's obligation to provide up-to-date information to parties, and applies both with respect to the event report and the initial event notice. In all cases, the organizing entity shall not include information on minors, volunteers, and persons who attended because they are employed at the event.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It clarifies the organizer's obligations. It's a clarification amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Could you explain that in clear English? What does this amendment do?
Liberal
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It clarifies the event organizer's obligation to provide up-to-date information to parties, and applies both with respect to the event report and the initial event notice.
The information has to be correct before and after. It's a fix.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Mr. Chair, it makes sure there's close coordination between the event organizers and the respective political parties, so the reporting, both ahead of the event and afterward, is consistent and accurate. If there are last-minute changes, for example, of venue or time, that those are reported properly.
