Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 12th, 2006

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So L-2 is out of order.

Okay. Now we go to clause 41. This deals with contributions from corporations, unions, associations.

There are a series of other clauses that are related to this particular clause. As we've done several times before, I propose that we deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 41 before I put the question on clause 41.

So we will first deal with the amendments to clause 43. Once that is done, we will put the question on clause 41, and its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses: clauses 43, 52, 54, and clauses 60 to 64.

So we will stand clause 41 and we will call for the first amendment, which is NDP-1.10, Mr. Martin, on page 48.2 of your package, which relates to clause 43.

(On clause 43)

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Even though I have a feeling I'm walking into a set-up and you may rule this out of order, I will move NDP-1.10, and if possible, I'd like to speak to the amendment too.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chair never sets anybody up, Mr. Martin--at least, he does his best not to.

The amendment NDP-1.10 proposes a repayment of contributions in cases where a member ceases to be a caucus member of the party from which they were elected. I've read this before. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair rules that it is. Therefore, Mr. Martin, I must rule that NDP-1.10 is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and is consequently inadmissible.

On a point of order, Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I didn't hear whether there was a point of order made by anybody for you to rule on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chair is ruling on it, Mr. Murphy, on my own, which I'm entitled to do.

We're going to clause 41. As I indicated, the vote on clause 41 applies to clauses 43, 52, 54, and clauses 60 to 64. Is that clear?

(Clause 41 agreed to)

(Clause 43 agreed to)

(Clause 52 agreed to)

(Clause 54 agreed to)

(Clauses 60 to 64 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now go to clause 42. There are no amendments.

The chairman concludes, with respect to clause 42, that it applies to clauses 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, and 57.

Is there any debate on clause 42?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

This is just a point of clarification.

Given that my amendment L-2.1, on page 48.1 in our binder, creates a new clause, is that the clause we would deal with immediately following dealing with clause 42?

[A voice]

Precisely.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

(Clause 42 agreed to)

(Clause 45 agreed to)

(Clauses 48 to 51 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 53 agreed to)

(Clause 55 agreed to)

(Clause 57 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to new clause 42.1, which is on page 48.1.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'd like to move my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed.

Mr. Martin, and then Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Does Ms. Jennings have any opening remarks to introduce her amendment? I didn't mean to jump in front of her. I only wanted to be on the list to speak.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I think my amendment is pretty self-evident. It deals with adding a criterion to the individuals who have a legal right to donate: that in addition to being an individual who is a citizen or a permanent resident, as is now the case, that individual would have to be at least 18 years of age.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If we're getting into debate, the chair is going to make a ruling. The chair is going to rule this as being inadmissible.

Amendment L-2.1 proposes an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relating to contributions to registered parties, associations, leadership contestants, or a nomination contestant. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654--you must have this memorized by now, but I'm going to say it again--

...an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it's inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, amendment L-2.1 is inadmissible.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would like to speak to that ruling, because my amendment does not in any way amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. What my amendment does is to state that the definition of a permanent resident, which we find under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is the definition to be used when applying this legislation.

Nothing in my amendment is carried over into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It simply refers to the definition under the act. If one wishes to know the legal definition of a permanent resident, go and take the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act off the shelf, look up subsection 2(1), and you'll find what the definition is.

I would urge you to speak again with your advisers. I think if you sought technical explanations or advice from Mr. Chénier or Mr. Joe Wild, they would confirm what I just stated.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chairman is wrong. You may proceed with your amendment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Given that the chair has now ruled that my amendment is in fact in order, I would seek the support of the members of this committee to adopt it and to carry it in order to ensure that under C-2, electoral donations, political donations, will be admissible only from individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents and who are at least 18 years of age.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Sauvageau.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair. As much as I understand what Ms. Jennings is getting at, and I appreciate at least the work that she's done and the sentiment inherent in this, I think she's trying to stem the problem that arose with what we're calling the Volpe clause, because we were all horrified at this idea of shaking down school children for their lunch money, to overstate things somewhat. While it would prevent children being coerced into participating by those who would seek to exceed the donation limits of the Election Act, I feel some reservations and hesitation with Ms. Jennings' amendment in that I believe she may have gone too far. No matter how well-intentioned the amendment is, there is a legitimate place for young people getting involved in the political process.

The New Democratic Party has a youth wing to which someone over the age of 12 can be a member. It's not inconceivable that a 14-year-old may choose to donate $50 to an election campaign as part of an exercise in learning more about politics, and their parents might encourage them to do so. We don't want to see the abuse that clearly took place in the recent Liberal leadership race.

So I'm going to speak against this amendment on the basis that I think there has to be a way to allow young people to get involved in that process, but with some guidance and control. The NDP has put forward an idea that I would like to speak to when the occasion arises.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, go ahead, please.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm somewhat at a loss for words after hearing those remarks. The NDP members never cease to amaze me. They are funded by the unions, they don't want the unions coming here to speak to us and now, they want young people to finance their election campaign.

I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Volpe's amendment, even though we would have preferred the definition used in Quebec. In Quebec, a person must be eligible to vote in order to make a contribution to a political party. That simplifies matters even more. A person who is eligible to vote can contribute financially to the electoral process. I don't know if this kind of amendment would be amenable to everyone. We endorse the proposed amendment, but we would have preferred to have it clearly stated that only eligible voters can make election contributions.

Thank you very much.

You continue to surprise me, Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right, Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I share similar concerns to Mr. Martin, because, frankly, I made my first contribution to a political party when I was 15 years old, and this would have prevented me from ever being a member of a political party. I donated $5 to join the party. What year was that again? I can't figure out which party.... What did we call ourselves at the time?

I would have been prohibited from participating as a member of a federal political party had this clause been enacted into statutory law. I know of dozens of youth in my constituency who recently met to start up a youth association in our constituency, all of whom would be disqualified from continuing to contribute their $10 membership fee.

The Liberal Party has already caused problems with donations due to the Volpe affair, and I would not want those problems to now extend and strip away the democratic rights of people to join parties before they turn 18—a right that our party cherishes. So I'm going to propose a subamendment, replacing Ms. Jennings' amendment. For the purpose of placing it in the act, it would read: “Section 404 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection 404(1): In addition, no individual shall make a contribution to a leadership contestant, or to a nomination contestant, unless the individual is 18 years of age or older.”

In other words, we ban the Volpe effect but we continue to allow youngsters to be members of federal political parties. In essence, we address the concerns that Ms. Jennings is ostensibly seeking to deal with, and at the same time we ameliorate the concerns Mr. Martin has raised.

I offer that subamendment, Mr. Chair.