National Philanthropy Day Act

An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Elsewhere

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.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, the last time I was here, I talked about philanthropic organizations. I spoke from the heart about my bill, C-399, for 15 minutes. I was very clear and I never looked at my notes. This subject is very important to me. Yesterday I mentioned that it was "Madeleine Nadeau's bill"; Madeleine Nadeau was my grandmother.

Today I am going to take another tack and ask everyone to be patient. I am going to go at this point by point because it is important to paint a picture of the situation.

National Philanthropy Day is important, but, for me, it is the first stage. In the strategic planning of a responsible government, it is important not just to thank people, but also to adopt a vision and put specific measures in place.

The purpose of National Philanthropy Day is to increase public awareness of charitable activities and to thank people who make donations throughout the year, not just those who give money, but also those who offer some of their time on a volunteer basis.

A Statistics Canada study based on 2010 data confirms that the number of Canadians who donate to charities has stagnated since 2007, which is troubling. The volume of donations has also not increased, despite the greater need for services. As for volunteer hours, the same study shows that, despite an increase in the number of people who do volunteer work, the number of hours has not changed.

Failing an adequate number of donors and volunteers, charities will be unable to provide essential services to the communities we live in. It is therefore essential to put tools and mechanisms in place to help these organizations continue to offer their services. In a way, these organizations are our last resort.

Since macroeconomic statistics do not provide a clear idea of the pressures many Canadians are under, let us consider some more telling figures. In 2011, approximately 3.5 million Canadians, nearly one in 10, were living in poverty; that is enormous. According to Food Banks Canada's 2011 report, no less than 850,000 people—that is almost one million—used food banks in March 2011. That is a 25% increase over the figures observed before the 2008-09 recession.

The European economy could go back into recession and that of the United States is still very fragile. Emerging markets are also slowing down. Consequently, people who are vulnerable are increasingly so.

The Canadian economy does not operate in isolation. We are subject to everything that goes on around the world. The pressures on food banks and other charities, which are straining to make ends meet, will rise further. Despite the increase in demand, the supply of assistance to charities could unfortunately be limited. Most charities depend to a large degree on government financial assistance. Those organizations will have to fight for the essential funding to maintain their activities.

In short, today I believe we have to ask ourselves two basic questions about National Philanthropy Day. First, why is it important to recognize National Philanthropy Day? Second, what more can the government do to assist this essential sector?

The answer to the first question is quite clear. This kind of day obviously costs the government very little and can generate big returns. On the one hand, National Philanthropy Day is an occasion to encourage Canadians to do volunteer work, to make donations and simply to say thank you. On the other hand, it is also an opportunity to pay tribute to major donors, to philanthropists and to local volunteers for the services they provide to the community.

The second question is much more specific and more complicated. First, we must determine what the organizations need. Imagine Canada and other organizations have asked that question many times and have made demands to the government. For example, in August 2011, they proposed an increased tax credit for charitable donations. This proposal is currently under review, but it is not clear whether the government will agree to it.

The sector also asked us to ease the limits on political activities that the Conservative government set in 1986. It is still is trying to do that here, and it has almost succeeded. No matter what the government may think, political activities are important to this sector. They are often the only way to be heard amidst the flood of claims and lobbying from the private sector.

I have an example. A mining company opens in a region where people are very poor and rely on the existing services. For contractual reasons and all kinds of other reasons, this company does not fulfill its commitments. It pollutes, destroys and does not give back what it should to the community. The community ends up just as poor as it ever was. The only collective recourse it has is to get together, create an organization that will inform officials about the issue and that will promote the community's interests.

However, this government has decided that this organization must absolutely not be involved in any kind of politics. But it knows the local issues. That is how the community can represent itself.

Let us look at the private sector. In 2011, about $26 billion was spent on lobbying. Let us assume that the volunteer sector spent 10% of its total expenses of $10.6 billion, which represents about $1 billion. What did it spend this billion dollars on? To inform the government about existing problems. And what was done with the $26 billion? It was spent on advertising, providing misinformation and on spinning the situation.

People who have problems also have the solutions, and they are the ones who do something about it. They are also the ones invited to be in government, to stand for election, and they have lived the reality.

In closing, let us consider the mammoth budget implementation bill that was introduced in the spring and which would crack down on expenses related to political activities. I just cannot imagine that, nor can charities. We have to start thinking more strategically in order to ensure that the sector is strong.

That is why I introduced Bill C-399. It conveys the message that a national philanthropy day is a good thing and that it is important. Our position will not change. We are grateful and thankful, every day, that people who are victims can receive services, and that the poor are lifted out of poverty through the great generosity of volunteers. Introducing the bill is a way of saying that we want to take this one step further. The government has to take responsibility and do more.

Today, our position is that a national philanthropy day is important. However, the matter is not closed. There are the demands of the organizations and volunteers, but, above all, there are the demands of the people who are not satisfied with current services, whether they are private or public services, because of budget cuts. People are tightening their belts, people are starving, people no longer have the resources to move forward. We want a strong country that can move forward in the future. It is our responsibility to provide the tools.

Yes, philanthropy day is important, but we need a global vision.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of speaking in the House, I am once again honoured to rise today to speak about this particular private member's bill, because it fundamentally deals with how we love and support our communities.

Some time ago at the heritage committee, I had the honour of witnessing Senator Mercer's bill and hearing him talk about how he so passionately believed in this. He has been such a strong advocate for the necessity of what we are now doing that he impressed everyone at committee.

We talked about many aspects of establishing this philanthropy day, including charities and how they work throughout this country. Here I will for a moment be somewhat provincially biased in saying that Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the statistics, is by far one of the most giving provinces in this country. That is for the record, of course.

I also want to talk about the fact that Canadians in general are very giving, because we are passionate and have a belief, to our central core, about who we are as a community and how we love our communities and children. As a result, there are millions, if not billions, of dollars devoted to philanthropy in this country. We have to look at the essential character of this country and recognize the people who have given so much of their time and finances that they have made this country as great as it is.

As I have said before, when it comes to volunteering time, there are 200 communities in my riding alone and the amount of money saved by volunteers providing essential services to our communities is absolutely phenomenal. The measure of humanity involved is absolutely phenomenal. To declare a national philanthropy day as a token is well worth receiving by anyone who volunteers in this country on behalf of any Canadian.

I would like to congratulate everyone who has spoken on this bill. I would also like to congratulate Senator Terry Mercer of Nova Scotia and my hon. colleague from Halifax West who brought this forward. To the people who spoke on this, I say congratulations. This is an immeasurable token that we can give to people who give of their time and finances. What a beautiful day it will be to recognize people who give so much to their communities, provinces and country.

On that note, I would like to seek consent for the following motion, that at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, all questions necessary to dispose of Bill S-201 be deemed put and that the bill be read a third time and now pass.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

There is no consent.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I admit that I heard a no, but I did not hear a no from inside the House. I heard a no from a stranger outside the House. If you ask the people in the House now—

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

An hon. member

This is not a charade.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Frankly, what we are about to witness is an extension of the charade. We heard a no, I admit it, but we heard a no from a stranger outside the House.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans on this matter. In fact, for voice votes members will know that members do not necessarily have to be in their appointed seats, as long as they are in the chamber. Members will also know that if the Chair senses that there is not consent for a motion, there is no consent, which is what I declared, and then we proceed.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on the same point of order?

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I do think we have to be delicate in how we deal with this matter.

When my colleague asked to have the motion passed, and when you canvassed the House to see if in fact there was anyone opposed to it, I, too, was listening and did not hear anyone within the chamber. I did hear someone yell no from the other side of the door, and that was after the question was put.

I would ask that we find out if there were anyone inside the chamber, because to my understanding, no one was inside the chamber when you posed the question.

It would be a terrible precedent for us to allow people outside of the legislative chamber to deny the opportunity to see this particular motion pass in the manner that has been suggested. Therefore, I would ask that if there were someone inside the chamber who said no, we get that reaffirmed.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member.

I will get to the member for Terrebonne—Blainville momentarily.

To the member for Winnipeg North, indeed, as he acknowledged, there are in fact two questions. The first question is to get the consent of the House that the motion be proposed. The second question is whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, at which point at least one member who was in the House, and I appreciate that the member may not have been able to see that from his vantage point, did say no at the time. That member was in the House at the time. That is why I declared the fact there was no consent.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville is rising on the same point of order.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I am not a stranger. I am an elected member of this House.

I was indeed inside the chamber and I said “no” loudly and clearly. The Speaker can confirm this. He saw me. I was physically present in the House. This could resolve the matter.

However, I repeat, I am not a stranger.

National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business

October 30th, 2012 / 6:30 p.m.


See context