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  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.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  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

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 receivi

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  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 requirem

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 pur

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, the

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 un

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.