Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 19th, 2017

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. The bill currently allows these thank-you events for maximum donors, and that type of event is excluded from this legislation. In my view, putting that exemption in place again still leaves lots of room for loopholes and getting around this. People know that they're going to get a double whack for their contributions. To me, it's the same game, but by a different name. This would prevent that exemption from happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

The purpose of the exemption acknowledges the logistical difficulties of enforcing this at a convention, with individuals moving around, and lining up who is in the room at the same time with certain individuals when there is coming and going.

Bill C-50 still ensures that if there is a ticketed event during a convention.... For example, at ours, there is always a Judy LaMarsh fundraiser to raise money for women candidates who are running. It's a separate ticketed event, and if a minister were to attend, that would be covered by this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Christopherson and then Mr. Reid.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would say to my honourable friend that there is merit in that argument. I don't see why we aren't constructing legislation that carves that out but still ensures that these other thank-you events aren't happening.

I don't think it's the conventions that are the bigger problem; it's the opportunity for a second gathering with the high-priced, influential government decision-makers still in attendance. That is being exempted from the transparency that Bill C-50 is providing elsewhere. That's my problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm sorry; it sounded as though Ruby was going to respond to Mr. Christopherson. I don't want to get in the way of that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

The purpose of that section isn't for appreciation events anywhere else, but only within a convention. Therefore, I think what you've just—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you show me that? If I have that wrong and if the language is that clear....

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could ask the officials to give us some guidance on this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Officials, go ahead.

[Madeleine Dupuis, Policy Advisor, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Yes, the exception is only for an appreciation event that is part of a convention. All other appreciation events are covered by the bill.

It's at line 4, on page 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you mean line 4 on page 3 of the bill?

[Madeleine Dupuis]

Yes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

If I may, it's exclusion of contributor appreciation events. It doesn't say that in the title, but it says:

(4) Despite subsection (3), a regulated fundraising event does not include any event that is a part of a convention referred to in subsection (2) and that is organized to express appreciation for persons who have made a contribution to the registered party or any of its registered associations, nomination contestants, candidates or leadership contestants.

The only exclusion is for those occurring at a convention, not outside of a convention.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That still leaves us with the same problem. Again, you're saying that it was too hard to keep track of it.

You're pulling together an event within the convention. I was thinking that if you're talking about a fundraising event during a convention, that may be one thing, but this is talking about pulling together those same people who are benefiting from having paid the maximum—I think in this case the Liberals have their Laurier Club—so these folks are going to be invited at a convention, but only they are going to be invited.

How would you have so much trouble keeping track of it when you'd have to invite them in the first place because they are maximum donors? They have to belong to your Laurier Club, and if that's the list you're drawing from to say that they're entitled to come, how is it so difficult to track? Why is that the issue?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The issue isn't that it's difficult to track, because those individuals are already recorded in Elections Canada. It's who is there at what time with what individual, and there are comings and goings throughout the entire weekend.

When I speak about logistical difficulties, these individuals are already.... You can go to Elections Canada and find out who the maximum donors are, and that's not an issue. As we've all been to conventions, we understand who is moving around and the difficulties of pinning down the time frame. Just because individual X was in a lounge and a minister was in the lounge, it doesn't mean that they were even there at the same time or on the same day, which is what this bill is trying to get at.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fair enough.

You could set it up so that nobody was really planning to do a whole lot of talking at the initial fundraiser, because the real deal was going to happen at the more exclusive one at the Laurier Club, where only those who paid the maximum were getting invited, and you'd be doing it under the guise of the convention. What would not be allowed anywhere else would be allowed because it's a convention.

When I was making reference to the convention, I was talking about fundraising events at the convention. There's all kinds of stuff going on. People are selling stuff. I have some sympathy for that. Still, at the convention you're going to pull together people who, by virtue of being Laurier Club members, are going to have a chance to go to an event and rub elbows with who knows whom, with no transparency whatsoever, all predicated on the fact that they are the top donors at another event or events.

To me, it's still providing access for cash. It's just that you paid the cash ahead of time.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Christopherson, at the beginning you said that it was okay at a convention and that your problem lay more with these events occurring outside of the conventions. Are you now rethinking the whole thing?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, that's because you said that this only applies to conventions. Why would I be arguing about something that's not included in the clause? You're the lawyer, not me. I'm just taking my lead from you.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You're changing your issue, I think.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, no. If you want to give me a chance to make a macro-case about it, I will, but the clause in front of us is talking about the conventions. I'm just saying that you're still allowing what you say Bill C-50 provides transparency for, and when it's at a convention, it's opaque. That's all I'm saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you. I must say that after listening to the back-and-forth, I feel a bit like a contestant at the side of a Jell-O wrestling match who inexplicably decides to do a swan dive into the middle of it.