Evidence of meeting #22 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, we have a subamendment.
We have Ms. Jennings, followed by Madam Guay.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I would first like to speak on my own amendment to explain why I will not be supporting Mr. Poilievre's subamendment. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in my amendment that would preclude a 12-year-old from becoming a member of the youth wing of the NDP—or a 14-year-old, because in the Liberal Party of Canada, the rule is that you have to be 14 years old to become a member—and paying their membership due. The membership due is not a political donation or a contribution.
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I have never received a tax receipt for my $5-a-year membership to the Liberal Party.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No, no.
So this in no way precludes a young person from joining a political party. It also in no way precludes that young person, under the age of 18, from volunteering their services--from helping to stuff envelopes, if that's what they wish to do; from attending activities; from going door to door during an election campaign, if that's what they wish to do; in helping to organize town hall meetings, etc. There is nothing in my amendment that would do that.
What this section precludes is someone under the age of 18, who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, from making a contribution that is tax receiptable, because the definition of “contribution” is found elsewhere in the act.
That's why I won't be supporting Mr. Poilievre's subamendment.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, we will be opposing Mr. Poilievre's amendment. Is it legal for candidates to accept donations during an election campaign? With Mr. Poilievre's amendment, it would be more legitimate in fact in the case of a leadership campaign. There's a double standard at play here and we cannot go along with this amendment.
Secondly, the Bloc Québécois has a youth wing made up of budding party members. My colleague and I are no longer part of this movement, but my children are. These young people get involved in volunteer work and various political initiatives. Quite often, they lack financial resources because they are students. I've never received any donations from these young people. However, we do help them organize forums, as well as regional and national meetings where they learn how the political process works. By youth wing, I means persons up to the age of 30, not just 16 to 18 year olds. They are mentored by teams of slightly older individuals.
To say that potential contributors must be eligible to vote is quite legitimate and a much simpler approach. We will certainly not be voting in favour of Mr. Poilievre's motion.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I would ask people to keep in mind that there is another idea coming forward. I would hate to see the subamendment pass that would actually preclude a further amendment we intend to put forward. Our idea is that minors should be allowed to make campaign contributions, but that figure, the amount they donate, should be deducted from the donation limit of their parent or their guardian. We believe this satisfies everybody's concern, because what we're trying to avoid is a family exceeding the donation limits by laundering money through their children's bank account.
We see nothing wrong with a 12- or 14-year-old child making a $20 contribution, or even a $50 contribution, but that amount would be deducted dollar for dollar from the amount their guardian would be allowed to donate. So it would avoid any abuse. The logic is that guardians are responsible for their minor children; therefore, they would also appreciate the tax receipt of their minor children to put against their own income at the end of that tax year.
My only hesitation with supporting Mr. Poilievre's amendment is I believe that would render my amendment, which will come up soon, out of order. And I think we have come up with an idea that would satisfy everybody.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
We've got a few people who want to say a few words here.
Mr. James Moore.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Pass. I was going to speak to the---
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Briefly on the subamendment, there seems to be a lack of legal underpinning to the whole situation in that the age of majority in each province is either 18 or 19. It's very different, and that's the age at which people are recognized in law. What I'm hearing from the subamendment and from the NDP is that young people who are not people in law, able to make their own decisions and choices, can make a decision up to a point. It seems to be quite inconsistent with what I've been hearing--supposedly as policy--from both parties, and I'm at a loss to understand what the legal underpinning might be, except, as they say, exigent circumstances make bad policy. I think we would be very much at odds with the law, given that in New Brunswick young Liberals can join for no fees whatsoever.
This probably needs more study--the subamendment, that is.
The consistent approach in Quebec, where the age of majority is 18, seems to be legal. It seems to be constant with good political principles, and if that's the spirit of this as well, I could certainly support the main amendment.
On the subamendment, it's hasty, it's rash, it's opportunistic, and it's wrong in law.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It will take me some time to recover from all those adjectives.
I'd like to get some clarification from the legal team here. Would the original amendment, without a subamendment, ban a minor from buying a political party membership for $10?
Counsel, Democratic Renewal Secretariat, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, subsection 404.2(6) of the Canada Elections Act provides that:
The payment by an individual during a year of fees of not more than $25 per year in relation to a period of not more than 5 years for membership in a registered party is not a contribution.
So that amount would be excluded from what is deserved to be a contribution.
Conservative
Counsel, Democratic Renewal Secretariat, Privy Council Office
That's correct.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That's good to know.
We have experts who could confirm these things for us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
There are all kinds of chats going on here. Either there's a debate, in which case you do it through the chair, or we're going to vote.
We're voting on Mr. Poilievre's subamendment.
(Amendment negatived)
We're voting on the amendment.
The chair votes against the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 44 agreed to)
(On clause 46)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Now we will go to clause 46. Clause 46 is consequential to 47, so the chairman is proposing that we do the amendments to clause 46 starting on page 49, which is a Liberal amendment.
Mr. Owen, L-3.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really have two concerns. The effect of this amendment is to raise the individual limitation from $1,000 to $2,000. Given the realities of the need to raise funds by political parties in order to properly fulfill their functions and the right of individual citizens to partake in political activity, including joining and contributing to political parties, $1,000 is simply unrealistically low and $2,000 would be more realistic. It also would provide that the costs of attending leadership conventions or other party and policy conventions would not be included in that amount.
Mr. Chair, everyone will recall that Bill C-24 was a very dramatic change in the political financing rules and culture of this country two or three years ago, and we're all clearly going in the same direction on this. However, the $1,000 limit seems low. It might be interesting to get some technical legal advice on this with respect to whether a $1,000 limit would be a breach of the charter, in breaching someone's personal rights.