Bill S-201 (Historical)

National Philanthropy Day Act

An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day

Comments by the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege that I think will have some relevance to my colleague across the way, the House leader for the government, as well as the House leader for the Liberal Party.

I rise on a question arising from some troubling insinuations made last night over the course of debate. I have been reviewing yesterday's debate and I was surprised and not somewhat concerned but very concerned by some serious allegations that were made by one of my colleagues across the way. These statements call into question the integrity of the House and the House leaders, and I wanted to raise them with you today, Mr. Speaker, as soon as possible.

During the debate on vote 1 on the main estimates, while referring to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code sports betting, the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned:

In fact, what transpired on Friday, March 2, 2012, was that the House leaders worked together to force debate to collapse before the full two hours of third reading had transpired, preventing members like me from “standing five” to request a full standing division on that piece of legislation.

By saying that, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is insinuating that the House leaders had come up with some kind of conspiracy to bypass the parliamentary process. Not only does this show a lack of understanding of the legislative process, it puts the credibility of the officers of the House into doubt. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it puts your credibility into doubt by insinuating that you would allow such a conspiracy to take place.

My friend across the way knows this place well and knows the rules that govern the House. He has been here for some time now, so I find it passing strange that he has gone so far as to suggest that there was a coordinated effort to trample his rights as a duly elected member of Parliament. Perhaps a brief review of what happened in this case can help clarify the situation for him and for all, and perhaps invoke some retraction or apology to both yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the House leaders.

Bill C-290 was debated at second reading on November 1, 2011. During the debate, all MPs had the opportunity to express themselves on this bill. This opportunity was seized by the member of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Windsor West, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert and the member for Charlottetown. Following these interventions, because no other member rose to speak, the Speaker put the question to the House, as is proper.

This is the normal procedure at any time when no further members rise to speak on a bill. If the debate collapses, the bill can be adopted or rejected at that point, or a recorded division can be requested by any five members in the House. In the case of this bill, there was not a single MP from any party who expressed their opposition to the bill being read a second time and referred to the committee.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills could have expressed his concerns at this time by simply standing up. He chose not to. During the committee study, any MP could have submitted their concerns on the bill or encouraged the committee members to recommend that the House not proceed with the bill at all. This is good legislation, so no member availed themselves of this opportunity and the bill was passed by the committee, once again without opposition.

Members had a third opportunity to express themselves at the report stage on March 2, 2012. Indeed, as prescribed in the Standing Orders, when a bill comes back from the committee and there are no amendments, the Speaker automatically puts the question at report stage. Once again, the bill passed through this stage without any opposition whatsoever.

The debate at third reading provided a fourth chance for the members to examine and debate the bill. Once again, representatives from all three recognized parties took the opportunity to address the bill. It was a lively debate. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, as well as other MPs, had the chance to give a speech on the bill at that point, but they did not. For a fourth time, the bill was passed by members of the House, without opposition.

The MP for Wellington—Halton Hills had all of these occasions to speak on Bill C-290 and to move any amendments or changes, but he chose not to. The order paper shows us well in advance when a bill is to be debated. It is not a secret. However, instead of standing to speak his voice, he chose to stay in his seat or not be present. Now he claims that there was somehow a conspiracy against him, blaming his House leader, myself and the House leader for the Liberal Party of having conspired to prevent him the opportunity to use his democratic voice.

Moreover, the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills seems to think that it is unheard of for a private member's bill to go through all steps without a standing vote. Since the beginning of this Parliament, at least two bills from opposition MPs went through all stages in the House of Commons without a standing vote. This was the case for Bill C-278, An Act respecting a day to increase public awareness about epilepsy, as well as Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

There was also Bill C-313, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (non-corrective contact lenses) and Motion No. 319 from the MP for Ottawa—Orléans.

These four private members' business items all passed through the legislative process without a standing vote in the House. We heard no such cries of conspiracy or condemnation from the member who is raising the complaints now or from any other member because this is the practice of the House. My friend from Ottawa—Orléans knows this practice well and used it.

These assertions that have been made are broad sweeping and undermine the integrity of the House officers of the various parties by calling into question the work that we undertake on behalf of our parties. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is calling into question the integrity of this House and the legislative process, a process he knows well. I hope that this is not what the member was suggesting or insinuating last night. Maybe it is just that the member has misplaced certain rules of the House.

If he feels that his rights to express himself in the House have somehow been violated, I also invite him to discuss this with his House leader or others who try to maintain an orderly and conducive debate in this place. He does not have to try and intimidate those of us in this House. We New Democrats, more often than anyone else in this place, believe in and defend the institution and the rights of members of Parliament to speak. We have opposed the 42 motions that have been moved by this government to shut down debate every single time. The insinuation that there is somehow a conspiracy to prevent certain members from speaking on a piece of legislation, simply because they are in opposition, is both offensive to myself and I would suggest to the other House leaders, although they will have their own positions and feelings about this.

I would also argue that this assertion puts your credibility into doubt by insinuating that somehow you would allow such a conspiracy to take place. I believe that these allegations constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.

If you come to the same conclusion that I have, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I look forward to the interventions by my colleagues across the way.

National Charities Week Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on this important debate. I want to say in advance that the official opposition will be in support of the bill. However, it would take it to committee where we think it must be examined before we can sign on entirely to what would at first blush seem to be a fairly straightforward and sensible bill. Let me explain.

I salute my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo for introducing the bill. It has, as he indicated, two separate points. The first is that the Income Tax Act would be amended to provide that charitable gifts, Crown gifts, cultural gifts, and ecological gifts made by an individual within 60 days of the end of a taxation year may be deducted from the taxable income of the individual for that taxation year. It would be like, as I understand it, RRSPs, for which there is a later timeline after the taxation year and which can be counted retroactively. That is the first part. The second is to establish a national charities week.

There are essentially two issues that need to be addressed, two separate components that need to be taken into account. We need to examine at committee very carefully the impact on federal revenues the bill might have, total charitable giving and the distribution of charitable giving. All must be taken into account if we are to accept this in the House as a positive step. The true cost is very difficult to examine. I will come to that later, but that is what must be taken into account if we are to examine the bill carefully.

As I understand it, the origin of this concept was a recommendation made by tax lawyers Drache Aptowitzer, who appeared before the finance committee in its study of tax incentives for charitable organizations in October 2012. I think my colleague alluded to that. This occurred before I had the honour of serving on the finance committee. I was not there for that report. I will have more to say later about it.

There have been a lot of challenges facing charities in this country resulting, of course, in part, from the very precarious economic environment facing Canadians during the fiscal crisis of the last couple of years but also, it must be said, based on the attacks on the charitable sector by the Conservative government.

As the member for Victoria, with a strong environmental presence, I have had numerous constituents come to me and ask what is going on in Ottawa. Why is it that the CRA is targeting charities, requiring in some cases, I am advised, hundreds of thousands of dollars in audit costs because these primarily environmental charities were not well liked by the government. That is a very serious accusation. Yet charitable organizations are suffering not only under that concern but also from an increase in red tape, which is ironic, because that was one of the key recommendations of the report on charities alluded to by my colleague. I will have more to say about that in a moment as well.

In order to understand the first element of this, which is the creation of a week, as I understand it, at the end of February to salute charities, we need to take into account that there have already been other statutes proposed and enacted to deal with the charitable sector. For example, there was Bill C-399 on a tax credit for volunteers, Bill S-201 to create a national philanthropy day, tax incentives for a charitable donation study, which the finance committee has undertaken, and so forth and so on.

The context needs to be understood. Is it going to add value to have such a week to salute our charities in light of that reality? That needs to be understood. Again, it is something a committee could look at more carefully. We recommended and support this initiative so that a committee can look at it in the context I have just described.

The government's approach seems to find ways to increasingly transfer what we used to think of as government responsibilities to the private sector. Charities, in short, are often required by the government to take up the slack in what used to be governmental activities.

In my community, we have The Mustard Seed and Our Place. There are innumerable food banks from coast to coast to coast. These charities are doing what many Canadians think is the responsibility of the government. That is something that is increasingly a problem.

No less an authority than the Fraser Institute has indicated that Canadians give only about half as much as our American friends do to charities. Perhaps we are taxed more. Perhaps we are less generous people. I do not know. My friend has indicated that the donor base is in fact going down. Therefore, we need to understand the implications of the second part of the bill in an already quite fragile situation.

I indicated that the government on the one hand is encouraging Canadians to give more. At the same time, it is taking away essential public services.

I want to go to the place the bill originated, which was with the recommendations of the law firm Drache Aptowitzer. I looked at some of the writings they have posted on their website to try to understand where the bill would fit. Sadly, they report that the Conservative government is making charitable donations even more difficult for Canadians.

In an article called “T3010: Mounting Complexity for Charities”, they report that it is getting harder and harder, despite recommendations to the contrary. The breadth of information now required, they state, is enormous. They give a list of forms and information charities are required to provide that is astounding. A booklet of 40 pages in length is provided. There is form T3010, the registered charity information return; form TF725, the registered charity basic information sheet; the financial statements of the charities; and the directors/trustees and like officials worksheet. There are pages of schedules.

What they say, the same people who have recommended this 60-day period, which is the second phase of the bill, is that we now have schedule 7, another form, and that “this has to do with political activity which of course is a hot topic for government”. They continue that in the 2012 budget “there were several announcements about third party political funding and in particular, funding from outside Canada”, and the author states: “How dare those Americans meddle in a Canadian environmental issue!”

They say that the request for information would be very difficult to comply with and point out that a lot of expensive audits would be required.

The official opposition is concerned about the way charities have been targeted if they are not popular with the government. That is something I am hearing daily in my riding.

Imagine Canada and the charitable organizations it represents have a lot of mixed feelings about Bill C-458. They like the concept, but like us, they are very concerned about the administration.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that by extending the deadline date by 60 days, from December 31 to the end of February, there will be administrative issues that will create concerns, namely the provision of receipts from the charities to donors to meet the deadline dates for personal tax returns, April 30, and trust returns, March 31.

The Canadian Bar Association, of which I am a proud member, has expressed similar concerns.

The costs are hard to imagine and hard to estimate. Would it result in an increase in personal donations? Perhaps. One would hope so. However, we need to examine carefully the real cost of this initiative.

The NDP will be supporting the bill so that it can be examined with the care it deserves at the finance committee or at the appropriate committee.

With that, I would just like to say that on the one hand the Conservatives are claiming to be helping charitable organizations, but on the other hand often cutting funding for those charities and making it more difficult with their red tape for them to continue to make the contribution they make to our society.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 22, 2012

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 22nd day of November, 2012, at 11:01 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to were Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, Chapter 23; and Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, Chapter 24.

Canadian Heritage

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

National Philanthropy Day Act

[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.

[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.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few minutes to discuss Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West, the Liberal sponsor of the bill in this House, and himself a supporter of non-profits. He does a lot of work to raise the profile and effectiveness of the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance, among other non-profits and charitable organizations.

Also, I would like to mention that Bill S-201 was sponsored in the other place by Liberal Senator Terry Mercer, who throughout his esteemed career has been a tireless advocate for philanthropy and fundraising. He has made a number of attempts to bring this initiative forward in legislation since 2004. I am honoured to assist in the bill's passage through the House. I am optimistic all parties and all members will be showing their support.

This bill designates November 15 in each and every year as National Philanthropy Day. The purpose of the bill is to increase public awareness of National Philanthropy Day as a time to thank those who give throughout the year and to focus public attention on major accomplishments made possible through philanthropic contributions. Key local individuals and corporations would be honoured for their philanthropic endeavours. Local fundraisers and volunteers would be recognized and thanked for their time, talent and dedication.

We are talking about almost half of Canadians, because many people volunteer in their communities. However, over the past 20 years, the percentage of Canadians who make charitable donations has been steadily decreasing and the average donor age has been rising. This is why it is important to raise awareness of this issue. By having a National Philanthropy Day, we shine a light on the importance of giving to charitable organizations, volunteering for them and acting in the public interest. It also reminds people that every dollar and every hour of volunteer time counts.

National Philanthropy Day is about encouraging schools, community groups and individuals to become more aware of the impact of philanthropy and to get involved. It is about encouraging young people to get involved, too. As I said, the average age of donors and volunteers is rising. It celebrates the endless daily contributions that individuals and organizations make to countless causes and missions in Canada and beyond.

This year there were more than 100 National Philanthropy Day events and activities across North America. Over 50,000 people participated. Sixteen Canadian events honoured philanthropists and volunteers in most major Canadian cities. This initiative would add strength to the recognition that is already happening.

On the worrisome side, Canadian giving has dropped for the last three years to about $7.8 billion, which is down from a high of $8.5 billion in 2006, according to Statistics Canada. Even more significant, the percentage of Canadians claiming a charitable deduction dropped from 24% to 23%. We are seeing an erosion of philanthropy, which is worrisome.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Peace River speak about his pride in philanthropists and support for the volunteer sector.

I must say that I believe that the actions of the Conservative government, which is attacking non-governmental organizations, are contrary to the thrust of this bill. I would like to put a question to the Conservative member who is proud of the volunteers in his community.

Is the hon. member proud that Conservative ministers are calling philanthropic organizations names? Is he proud that organizations that contribute to sectors right across the spectrum of public interest are being falsely accused of illegal activities like money laundering? Is he proud of the intimidation of the non-profit and charitable sector that is happening through magnification—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House this evening to speak in favour of Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day. It is my privilege to speak on it in this Parliament.

This bill has come before this House several times over the last number of sessions. As a matter of fact, in the last Parliament I had the privilege of having carriage of this bill in this House. Unfortunately, as a result of the election we were not able to see that passed. Today we have an opportunity to try yet again to see that this bill finally passes.

National Philanthropy Day has been around for some time. As a matter of fact, it was first declared in 1986. Since this first declaration of National Philanthropy Day, organizations across this country and North America have adopted National Philanthropy Day. Many organizations as well as provinces and organizations respect National Philanthropy Day, not only here in Canada but also in the United States as well.

In 2009, this government under the leadership of our Prime Minister undertook to formalize National Philanthropy Day by declaring that it would be on November 15 in Canada. As I said, until now it hasn't been formalized in legislation, and that is what we are trying to do today.

Philanthropy is not an empty concept to Canadians. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the necessity of those who give of their time, money, resources and expertise to assist other Canadians. It is something that distinguishes Canadians. We as Canadians believe very much in the responsibility to care for our neighbours.

When we talk about philanthropy, we are not talking about only those people who have their faces etched on some kind of local statue in bronze or granite. We are talking about those people who give of their time each and every day. We are talking about those 84% of Canadians who give some kind of donation to their local charities and organizations.

We are talking about those people who give significant amounts of their time to local organizations, be it the person who volunteers at a local homeless shelter, senior citizens who give of their time at the local Salvation Army, those who coach local soccer or football, or teachers who give a little extra time at the end of the school day to make sure children have access to a literacy program or something of that nature. Today we are speaking about those people who make our communities better, those who give a little to make sure our communities are better off.

As I said, 84% of Canadians give money to local organizations, and that translates into 23 million Canadians who give to charitable organizations. When we talk about charitable organizations, it is interesting to note that there are over 80,000 organizations across this country that do charitable work. If we consider the contributions made to those organizations, some $10 billion is given on an annual basis. It is a remarkable amount. If one divides that by every Canadian, it is over $400 for every man, woman and child to these organizations.

I spoke about the time that is given to different organizations. We all benefit from having these organizations in our communities. It is estimated that in 2010, more than 13.3 million Canadians, or 47% of the population, volunteered their time to a local group or organization that makes our country a better place. That translates into 2.1 billion hours of volunteer time that is given by Canadians. It is some 1.1 million full-time jobs.

It is a remarkable feat. We as Canadians know we could never repay the efforts. We could never come up with the amount of cash that would be necessary to replace those contributions that Canadians make through their volunteer hours.

Today we are talking about declaring a day to celebrate those folks. It is in no way, shape or form going to make up for the contributions that these people give to Canada on an annual basis, but that is not what we are seeking to do. We know that people who give their time and their money have no expectation of repayment. They do it because they want to build a better community, better and stronger provinces, and a better and stronger country. For that we, as Canadians and parliamentarians, can be proud.

In 2011, our Prime Minister instituted an additional recognition of volunteerism here in Canada with the creation of the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards. These are some of the most important awards given at the national level. They recognize those people who volunteer their time, who build our communities into better places. They are nominated by people who live in their communities.

This is also a special year. Not only are we celebrating the second year that the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards will be delivered to Canadians, but we are also celebrating Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee. We will recognize our monarch's 60 years of service by seeing the creation of the Diamond Jubilee Award. It will be given to Canadians across this country who have contributed to their communities.

Those members of Parliament who are still seeking nominations, and I know in my office we are still seeking nominations, for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Award would all appreciate me letting Canadians know. It is important across party lines that we recognize those people who have built stronger and more vibrant communities. Through this award we will see the celebration of those people who have contributed so much. Again this year as Canadians from coast to coast, we will celebrate another way that we can recognize volunteers and those who contribute to our communities.

This is also a special year because we are celebrating the War of 1812. The question could be asked, what does that have to do with National Philanthropy Day and volunteerism. It really hearkens back to the creation of this nation and the role that volunteers played. Those who volunteered their service during the War of 1812 provided front line service on a voluntary basis. They were not paid for their militia service. They volunteered willingly, knowing that they were putting their lives on the line and believing in what would be Canada.

As we hearken back to that first step in creating this great country, or one of the most important things in establishing this country, we recognize that volunteerism played such an integral role even at that point in time.

I had the opportunity two weeks ago to be in Muskeg Lake, Saskatchewan. We were also in the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. In these communities we heard of people who fought in the War of 1812, first nations people who gave willingly, laying their lives on the line so that we might have this country of Canada. We are thankful for the service that those people gave to Canada, but also for the legacy for the communities.

We heard stories of inspiration, how the French, English and first nations came together to fight a common battle to see Canada created and protected. That legacy has continued even to this day. People continue to volunteer in respect of services. It is good for us to hearken back as we consider philanthropy and some of its origins here in Canada.

Communities across this country recognize the importance of philanthropy. In my own riding of Peace River, in the city of Grande Prairie and throughout the northern portions of my riding, we would not be as strong a community as we are today if it had not been for those people who give back.

We know there are business leaders within our community who have contributed significantly over the years to build a stronger community through their financial contributions to local and national charities. I can think of a number of different families. There are the Evaskevich, Henry Hamm, and Abe Neufeld families. I think of Peter Teichroeb and the Bowes family. I think of the Longmate and Diederich families who have contributed so significantly through their financial contributions to our communities. I also think of those people who have given their time. I can speak of Arta Juneau and a whole host of others who have given so significantly.

I am running out of time. I could continue for some time talking about the volunteer contributions of those in my community, but I should leave it there. We should all remember that in each one of our communities there are those people who give of their time and money. They truly are philanthropists.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Governor General

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I regret to say I must interrupt the hon. member, but when this item reappears on the orders of the day, he will have four minutes left to complete his intervention.

The time provided for the consideration of this item of private members’ business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill S-201 under private members' business.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-1002, An Act to authorize the Industrial Alliance Pacific General Insurance Corporation to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of Quebec.

The bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.