Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Certainly I think it would be prudent to do so.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There would be the reporting of the contributions as always, according to the normal rules.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It seems like a very reasonable element to add to the bill, yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, exactly. With a table of $500, if it's 10 tickets of $50, none of the tickets in order to attend are over $200, so my reading is that this would not trigger.... If any of the tickets are more than $200, then that would trigger the application of the rules.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  For most of the political financing rules in the act when there's a requirement or a prohibition, there's both an offence created that we call a negligence offence or a due diligence offence, which does not require intent but only requires that the person exercise due diligence, but there is also a parallel offence in many cases requiring intent.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would have to go back, but I believe that's the case, yes.