This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie
Order. Apologies to the hon. member. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra may continue.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River is essentially attacking my speech.
I ask whether the hon. member is proud of intimidation through auditing. The government has cut funding for important organizations that do volunteer and charitable work, but it was able to find $8 million to give to the Canada Revenue Agency for the specific and sole purpose of auditing non-profit groups to intimidate them. Is the hon. member proud of that? Is the hon. member proud of the de-funding of organizations that dare to speak out and say something the government does not like? Is he proud that we are stifling debate and democracy in this country?
I hope he is not. I hope the support for philanthropy and philanthropic organizations shown by Conservative members will cause them to rethink the systematic policies of intimidating non-profit groups that speak out.
Democracy is about speaking out. It is about dissenting. It is about organizations telling a government of whatever stripe when the organization believes the government is on the wrong track or is missing an opportunity to improve people's lives. That is the function of civil society. That is the function of many of non-profit and philanthropic groups. They need to be free to be part of this country's public policy debate.
The charitable sector in Canada is enormous, with more than $100 billion in annual revenues. One must think about the contributions it is making to the public good. The charitable sector is approximately equal in size to the economy of British Columbia. Furthermore, in Canada it is made up of more than 160,000 organizations, over 1.2 million paid staff, which is a lot of jobs, and 6.5 million volunteers.
What is the impact on the volunteers for these groups and organizations of having a government that attacks the organizations for which they work and to which they donate? It is really difficult for Canadians who clearly want to contribute to the public good, but who have a government that attacks their organization.
Canadians are recognized around the world for their generosity and compassion. I hope we can maintain that profile and recognition at a time when the Conservative government is de-funding organizations, some of which have international reach and help people who are the poorest of the poor in other countries.
Many of these charitable organizations work in my constituency of Vancouver Quadra. It has a wide variety of charitable initiatives and people who contribute to those efforts, from affordable housing to protecting women in situations of family violence, to philanthropy in terms of arts, dance, opera, theatre. The Kitsilano Showboat is a wonderful example of a philanthropic non-profit organization that enriches the lives of people throughout Vancouver Quadra.
We continue to be inspired by the dedication of volunteers who give freely of their time to improve the lives of others.
Through Senator Mercer's persistence, dedication and hard work, and through the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West, I hope this bill will be passed by my colleagues in the House, as it has passed through the other place on several occasions before.
Last, I would hope that members on the Conservative benches would really think about the importance of philanthropy, as declared through National Philanthropy Day, and look to their ministers' and government's actions in de-funding, in muzzling, and in stifling dissent. Such actions essentially send a message to those in the philanthropic and volunteer sector that they may only speak in support of the government's actions or else they will be punished. What will that do to our democracy? It is completely unacceptable and has to stop.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day. I believe this bill is essential to recognizing the importance of the philosophy of humanism and the contribution of philanthropists to society.
National Philanthropy Day was celebrated for the first time on November 15, 1986. Canada was the first country to formally recognize this day in 2009.
Unfortunately, all bills to establish a permanent day have died on the order paper. A number of my colleagues must be wondering why there has not been unanimity on this matter, and this is something that has puzzled me as well.
Canadians are well known for their philanthropy. A number of studies by major Canadian financial institutions have shown that Canada has very generous philanthropists. These people invest in Canada and other parts of the world and, contrary to popular wisdom, they are not all members of Canada's wealthy elite.
These philanthropists include many ordinary Canadians who firmly believe they can change their communities through their contributions. Almost 70% of Canadians gave to charity in the past 12 months. Average donations total $487 a year.
After all, it is only natural for Canadians to want to try and improve life for their fellow citizens, regardless of their means. Humanism is at the heart of the priorities of many Canadians for whom the suffering of others is unbearable. It is not necessary to make a financial donation to be considered a philanthropist.
Philanthropy can also be expressed by showing compassion and doing something tangible to change things. Just look at volunteers. They make us realize that being philanthropic is a matter of passion, altruism and self-giving.
I want to share with my colleagues a number of philanthropic acts. Canadian history is filled with memorable examples. Hon. members can judge the generosity and contributions of these prominent philanthropists for themselves. These remarkable people are responsible for considerable changes in Canadian society because they had the vision and the will to make those changes. You do not need to be wealthy to bring about change. Everyone can be socially responsible.
My first example, Elizabeth McMaster, was one of those people. Troubled by the high death rates of children, in 1875, she founded Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. What is today renowned throughout the world as a leading pediatric health centre was created because a group of women decided to rent a house equipped with only six cots at a cost of $320.
Many of us are probably aware of the important contribution made by Sir Frederick Grant Banting to medicine. In 1922, this Canadian scientist discovered insulin. With no access to research grants at that time, Banting sold his own car to finance his work. In order to ensure that insulin would be affordable to all who needed it, he sold the rights to insulin for the symbolic sum of $1, when he could have made a fortune. Clearly, his motivation was not the same as that of today's pharmaceutical giants.
Terry Fox's 1980 Marathon of Hope stands out as one of Canada's best philanthropic achievements. To date, the Marathon of Hope has raised over $400 million worldwide for cancer research.
These are just a few of the many examples of Canadians' philanthropic inclination throughout history. These men and women sought to improve the lives of others and showed compassion toward those in need.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Rick Hansen, who wheeled his way through 34 countries in 26 months. A modest man, he inspired an entire nation to believe that anything is possible, much like the late Jack Layton did.
I hope that these examples of great Canadian philanthropists have inspired my colleagues to reflect on the current state of philanthropy in Canada and its development over the years.
It is clear that philanthropy is important, particularly in today's society. Currently, we are seeing growing inequality between rich and poor in Canada. Studies of rich countries have shown that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the worse off everyone is. Conversely, a smaller gap has a positive impact on everyone.
What are those positive effects? Greater social mobility, longer life expectancy and better academic achievement, not to mention lower rates of obesity, homicide and incarceration, to name but a few.
Those are all excellent philanthropic causes. I feel the need to point out that greater restrictions on employment insurance eligibility, cuts to social programs and lower taxes have not resulted in better wealth redistribution.
In such a context, philanthropy takes on a whole new importance because it fills a void where government help is insufficient or completely non-existent. Philanthropy thus helps to find solutions to the social problems of our time and mitigate the harmful effects of cuts in services.
In Canada, philanthropy is often synonymous with innovation. It mobilizes experts in every sector. In terms of environmental protection, we need only think of people such as David Suzuki or Steven Guilbeault. They have devoted their lives to environmentalism for the good of humankind. No one can question their influence and credibility in this field throughout Canada and the entire world. Their role is even more important today when we consider the negligence of this government, which has a permanently withdrawn from the Kyoto accord. I feel reassured knowing that determined people continue to work for our collective interest when it comes to the environment.
Let us also recognize the contribution of Canada's charitable and non-profit sector, which is made up of close to 161,000 agencies and generates billions and billions of dollars a year. Can you imagine the important contribution this makes to our GDP? It is a real economic force in Canada. Would you like to know where Canada stands in this area as compared to other countries? Canada has the second largest charitable and non-profit sector in the world. That is very impressive.
Canadians are contributing financially to this sector in record numbers and many give their time to these organizations. Of course, this sector is quite diverse and that is its strength. Whether we are talking about education, health, social services, housing, environmental protection, the arts, culture or other sectors, they all have a crucial role to play in our society.
I want to reiterate the need to give this day permanent status. That is what the key philanthropic organizations in the country want and for good reason.
This country was built on the generosity of its people. It is our duty to encourage Canadians to want to change things in their communities for everyone's well-being.
Canadians must actively participate in their communities in order to keep their communities thriving. We have to think about the future of philanthropy in Canada in a way that gives the country a more human face. We have to explore the possibilities before us and find the best solutions for the problems facing our communities.
I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort, as this should be a non-partisan issue. Let us recognize this day and become a role model for other countries.
In closing, I would just like to say that I am very involved in my community. That is probably why it was so easy for me during the election campaign because people already knew me. Philanthropy opens up some unimaginable doors for us and that is truly great.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.
I rise here today in part because I know that the people of Pontiac support this bill, and I am merely their humble representative. However, I also strongly believe in the importance of philanthropy.
The main idea behind this bill is to create a permanent philanthropy day by declaring November 15 National Philanthropy Day. This is a laudable goal.
I would argue that it is about time that we recognized philanthropists and philanthropy in this manner. As an elected official, and no doubt like many of my colleagues here in the House, I have had the opportunity and the privilege of attending many philanthropic events in my riding. I am always impressed by how generous the people of Pontiac are with both their time and money. My riding boasts many philanthropic associations, including Lions Clubs, Optimist Clubs, Knights of Columbus, the Masons, religious philanthropic groups, and I could go on.
I am always impressed by the great amount of work these associations do to help people on the margins. They are the ones who provide services and funds when families are really in need. I am also happy to live in a country with such a long-standing philanthropic tradition. Like many Canadians, I was very impressed by how willing my fellow citizens were to help after the earthquake in Haiti. I am pleased to note that, according to a BMO survey on philanthropy, Canadians are still making generous donations despite the difficult situation caused by recent events. For example, some 70% of Canadians donated to charity in the past 12 months. Canadians gave an average of $487 to charities over the past year, and plan to give just as much in 2012. Over the past 20 years in Quebec, the Fondation communautaire du Québec has served as an umbrella organization for over 500 funds created by families, individuals and businesses. These people have seen the opportunity to give to causes that matter to them. Through these funds, donors give back over $1.5 million per year to organizations.
This shows how Canadians and Quebeckers take the true meaning of the word “philanthropy” to heart: “phil” means love, and “anthropy” means human beings. This is about loving human beings. To love our fellow human beings is to help them.
National philanthropy day was celebrated for the first time on November 15, 1986, and Canada was the first country to officially recognize the day in 2009. We can be proud of that and of Bill S-201.
Leading philanthropic organizations have expressed strong support for this bill. The submission by the Association of Fundraising Professionals recommended passing the bill. But we must not heap too much praise on ourselves.
Philanthropic associations are also the first to tell us that it is getting harder and harder for them to do their work in society. Today, there are many obstacles to their operations and major obstacles for Canadian donors.
If we are to keep the spirit of giving alive in Canada, it will take more than a special day. A report published by the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy discusses some of the challenges to philanthropy today. For example, approximately 4 in 10 donors said that they did not give more because they did not think their donations would be used efficiently.
To retain these donors and encourage them to give more, perceptions about how charities spend their money and what results they achieve from those expenditures has to be addressed and changed.
There are also particular challenges with regard to age. Many charitable organizations and service clubs have an average age which is much too high to be sustainable. Attracting young people is increasingly difficult. Younger donors may need a special approach as we go forward. More than half of younger donors, and that is donors aged from 15 to 34, according to the same report, do not give more money because they want to save for their future needs or because they prefer to spend money in other ways.
Although it may be difficult to overcome financial barriers, particularly with regard to debt for young people, the participation of the youth in philanthropy by giving their time could be made more fun and more social. There is some evidence to point to the fact that event-based fundraising approaches or cause-related fundraising, both of which deliver a benefit while raising money to the individual, are more successful with the young today.
Encouraging youth participation in activities such as team sports, youth groups and student government may also pay dividends in the future. Canadians who have had these early life experiences have been shown to be more likely to donate later in life.
However, many other barriers exist, including education, employment status, household income, culture, et cetera. It is perhaps not surprising to note, though, that Canadians who are older, better educated and have a higher household income are more likely to give out of a sense of religious or civic obligation. Their sense of feeling like they owe something to the community also seems to be higher.
As generations change, one can rightfully ask whether the spirit of giving will continue. It is also interesting to note that the top two reasons why Canadians make charitable donations are they feel compassion for those in need, that is 94% of donors, or they believe in the cause supported by the organization, which is 91% of donors.
It is also interesting to note that more than half, 53% of top donors and a significant percentage of donors in all demographic categories, said that they did not give more because they did not like the way requests for donations were made to them.
Perhaps more fundamentally, we must understand the challenges charitable organizations face today within a larger socio-economic context. Demand is higher and higher as the population grows, but also many of their challenges can be related directly to the lack of commitment of governments to address poverty, particularly of the most vulnerable in our society, such as women, women who are victims of violence, children and seniors.
The state cannot devolve itself of its social responsibilities. Despite these challenges, I truly support the bill. Any measure which underlines the incredible work done by charities in our country every day can only encourage others to give. These associations are too often on the front lines of social concerns and those organizations and volunteers should be recognized. It is the least we can do as parliamentarians.
The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie
Resuming debate. Seeing no one rise, I turn to the hon. member for Halifax West for his right of reply.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in reply because there is not much to reply to in view of the fact that there is so much support for the bill on philanthropy day. I thank members who have spoken today and during the first hour of debate on the bill. It is a good bill. It appears that this is the view of the House because all parties support it.
I thank all members who have spoken to the bill, who expressed their views and who have talked about the importance of philanthropy and the different organizations that do charitable work across the country. There are many and their value to Canada is incalculable.
I look forward to the bill hopefully passing second reading and going on to committee.
The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)