Bill S-216 (Historical)

Effective and Accountable Charities Act

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to permit charities to provide their resources to a person who is not a qualified donee, provided that they take reasonable steps to ensure those resources are used exclusively for a charitable purpose.

Effective and Accountable Charities Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion.

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the order for the second reading of Bill S‑216, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South shall be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in the House.

Today, we are talking about a private member's bill for renaming the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle to include Napierville. I want to talk a bit about that community and why I believe it is important that it get recognized. Of course, it is famous for its fruits and vegetables and has a beautiful rural countryside. There are many beautiful things about it, so I am glad to see that like all the great towns and beautiful areas in Quebec that get recognized, it is being recognized as well.

I also want to talk in general about my riding. It is composed of a number of areas, and one of them is Clarington, where I live, which did not make the cut for the name. I have a beautiful countryside as well, so perhaps it is a little akin to Napierville as it is another beautiful rural area.

Members of the Bloc made the excellent point that perhaps there are more poignant things we could be talking about in this House. I certainly do not want to be rude in any way, so I will underscore the wonderful countryside and beautiful people of Napierville. As for getting their moment in the sun, my understanding is that after the redistribution, they will, but as I said, it is not the most poignant of PMBs.

I just want to go through some of the things we can talk about in a private member's bill, if the Speaker will give me that bit of indulgence.

I have had the opportunity to raise a couple of private member's bill in this House, one of which was to give an exemption on propane and natural gas to farmers, who, of course, are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year. I was glad to see that it made it through the House, but it fell apart when the government unfortunately called a needless, unnecessary and very expensive election. I am glad to see that it is being brought forward by one of our fellow Conservative members, the member for Huron—Bruce, if I have that correct, and that it is now back in front of the agriculture committee. It is Bill C-234, which will provide tremendous relief and save farmers thousands of dollars.

As we know, in Napierville and elsewhere in Canada farming is among one of the hardest but most important occupations we can have. Of course, without farmers we do not eat, so one of the ideas I would throw out is that perhaps we could have more private member's bills to help farmers.

We are going through an incredible food crisis and this spring will be very challenging. For most people in Canada, it will be okay. For the people in this House, who are earning good salaries, it will not be fun to go to the grocery store but they will be okay. I am worried about the people who are economically challenged, not just in Canada but across the world. We will see, if the forecasts are correct, some record-breaking starvation.

We have already seen the pain that Canadians are going through right now because of the lack of food production and because of inflation, with 1.47 million Canadians going to food banks in March 2022. That is a record high; it has never been higher. Twenty per cent of Canadians are now going to food banks on a regular basis and 60% of Canadians are failing to put food on their tables. These are the types of issues we need to be discussing. These are the types of issues we should be helping people with in rural areas across this country from coast to coast to coast.

By the way, the government was good enough to respond to my private member's bill by putting part of it into the budget, but unfortunately, instead of just giving farmers and the people in Napierville an exemption, it tried to put in a credit system. The challenge with how these debt-credit systems work is that, like the carbon tax, some of the money always seems to get stuck in Ottawa. Can members imagine that? It is so strange. These millions of dollars flow into Ottawa and are all supposed to flow out, but somehow they get stuck here in Ottawa. It is funny because that same money seems to flow pretty easily to Liberal insiders, friends and family, like with the arrive scam app worth $54 million. We still do not know where that money went. My goodness.

I could just imagine what the NDP or the Liberals would be saying if a private company took $54 million and had no idea from people who did not have even the obligation or the right to pick where that money came from. We need to be looking at this from the viewpoint of helping all Canadians going forward.

Another private member's bill that I worked on, with Senator Omidvar, was Bill S-216, which would help charities. There was a barrier, a Canadian problem called “direction and control” in charity law, which stopped Canadian charities from giving out money and working with other institutions around the world. Once again, do members know what the response of the Liberal government was? It put it in its budget.

I think I am singlehandedly driving a lot of the Liberal policy here. Maybe, to the member's credit, perhaps just having me talk about her private member's bill will mean the Liberals will also put that in the budget. There are odder things. I think there was some money to go to land control on the moon in one budget, and there is the arrive scam app, so certainly the Liberals could put this in the budget as well. However, that was another good idea for things we could put into PMBs that would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Finally, with respect to my ideas for private member's bills, we have the international human rights act. The international human rights act contains a number of clauses, one of which will force the Department of Foreign Affairs to publicize the names of individuals who are being held as prisoners of conscience. These are individuals who are held just because of their beliefs, because they are pursuing things like freedom, liberty, democracy, LGBTQ2 rights and indigenous rights around the world. They are being held in prison just because they are pursuing freedom for others.

It would also force the government to respond when Magnitsky act sanctions are called for by a parliamentary committee. If a parliamentary committee says, “We need Magnitsky act sanctions put on this person,” then the department has 40 days to respond. It does not have to do it, but it has to tell us why it is or why it is not imposing Magnitsky sanctions. It is a very reasonable thing.

To go back half a step, the Magnitsky act sanctions are sanctions the government can put on individuals who are committing vile human rights crimes. When the legislation was initially passed, there were many instances in Venezuela, Russia and other countries where these sanctions were used. However, these sanctions have stopped being used.

I see that I am running a little short of time, which is a shame, because I could really talk about the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle for hours and hours. It is an absolutely beautiful part of the world. However, I did think of another name for the riding, which is Roxham Road. This has been a serious issue for Canadians, for Quebeckers, and so while I say that a little in jest, it takes nothing away from this serious issue that I hope the Liberal government will listen and respond to.

I like all of the people of Napierville.

I hope they have an absolutely fabulous time and I look forward to their being fully recognized as everyone in Canada should be, regardless of what they believe, who they love or who they are.

Report Stage

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member for Winnipeg North could have continued speaking for some time. I will make him happy and start with his last statement, which referred to child care. We are pleased that this has now been established in the rest of the country and that Quebec has served as the model. That makes us very proud.

I would invite my colleagues in the House to remember this example when the Bloc asks for the right to opt out of the next few Canada-wide programs with full compensation. The right to opt out was a big factor in making this possible, as was recognition of the fact that Quebec already had a good system. For me, it is a mark of respect.

Not only did the federal government take our model and implement it elsewhere, it gave Quebec its share of the money it was owed without telling it what to do. The phrase “without telling it what to do” will come up a few times in my speech today when I speak about the conditions that are set to be imposed in various areas.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19. I will begin by criticizing its huge omnibus format. When the government claims to properly study bills and practise true democracy and freedom of speech, how can it seriously introduce a 500-page bill that amends 37 acts?

Several provisions involving minor amendments to legislation have garnered consensus. However, the bill also proposes other extraordinarily important and complex measures.

For example, there is the employment insurance reform, which, as I have said before, deserves to be studied separately and in depth. The current system helps too few workers in Quebec and Canada, and I find that unacceptable. I do not want to get too deeply into this, but I am not sure that anyone would hire me as an insurance salesman if I tried to sell homeowner’s insurance by telling prospective customers that the company would only pay four times out of ten in the case of a loss. This is what we are telling workers with this program, so an in-depth reform is necessary.

This omnibus bill makes it seem like the Liberal government is taking advantage of its deal with the NDP and the so-called majority it gives them to have a pile of legislation passed quickly. Still, we are more or less in favour of this bill, and we will continue to improve it, as we are doing now.

I would like to talk about cider and, especially, mead. Representatives of both these industries approached us to tell us that the reintroduction of the excise tax on July 1 makes no sense. Australia’s complaint, which led to the reintroduction of the tax, concerned wine, not cider or mead. These financially sound but more marginal productions are expanding and are the pride of several regions of Quebec. They did not deserve to be taxed. Their representatives were very anxious and approached our members to speak on their behalf.

I would like to publicly congratulate my colleague from Joliette who, with his team, did extraordinary work in committee and succeeded in having cider and mead exempted from the definition. I am very proud, we are happy, and this is one of the improvements I was talking about.

We also raised a few concerns voiced by charities, which feared they would be once again subjected to a mountain of paperwork in the restrictions, although the basis of Bill S-216 was positive. We will be keeping a close watch on that. We are keeping a close watch, and we will follow up.

As for the rest of Bill C-19, there are no measures we find strongly objectionable. For that reason, we are more or less in favour of it. Among other things, there is not much about oil subsidies, which is good. There is not much about nuclear energy. We are aware that that is coming but, for now, we have no opposition on the subject.

The numerous encroachments promised in the Liberal Party's budget, including encroachments on health care with the dental insurance plan, are not yet upon us. This allows us to take a step back and look at what is constructive in the bill. For one thing, it contains urgent measures that we approve of, such as the additional five weeks of EI benefits for seasonal workers. That is a positive measure in our eyes.

The Bloc Québécois offers constructive opposition. When proposals make sense, we are happy and we say so. When they do not make sense, however, we do not say that the government is lousy and that what it is doing makes no sense. We say that we think the government should try looking at the situation from such and such an angle. Quebeckers can count on us to keep doing this.

Obviously, there are the health transfers. We hope to get our way someday, even if it is not looking that way right now. This subject will always remain a bone of contention, but we will take the $2 billion offered, since it will give us some breathing room. The same goes for the $750 million for public transit.

There are also some good intentions, but we will need to work to make sure that they are implemented properly. I am thinking, among other things, about the tax treatment of companies that adopt zero-emission manufacturing processes. We will have to watch out for hidden subsidies for fossil fuels. The Bloc believes that we must eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies and begin transitioning to alternative energy sources. With respect to the ridiculous carbon capture projects for oil wells, we have seen the results they yield in other countries and the disasters they cause when they go wrong, because they do go wrong. I do not think we have the right to go down that rabbit hole. Right now, with climate change being what it is, we need to be diligent, but above all cautious. Let us be smart about this and move in the right direction.

We like the proposed amendments to the Competition Act to prevent collusion and abuse of power. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied the problems with competition among shipping container companies. During the pandemic, prices jumped from around $3,000 to more than $25,000 over the course of a year or a year and a half. That is outrageous. The container industry is concentrated in the hands of a few key players, so there is work to be done.

We also need to keep an eye on telecommunications companies' billing practices. I would like to see the hidden fees exposed. I think that that is also something positive.

The important thing is overall consistency. I also think it is good that pension fund managers would be forced to provide details on investments in things like fossil fuels. That is the first step in transitioning to green energy. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's platform or to talk to my colleague from Mirabel, who is very familiar with this issue. Our platform contains solutions, and we suggest some approaches that we would like to explore.

The luxury tax is a tricky topic, however. Everyone agrees with the principle of a luxury tax, but we need to be careful about how we proceed. The Bloc Québécois has expressed a number of concerns and reservations about this tax, mainly because we want to protect our aerospace industry. This industry should not have to wait so long for a rebate if it turns out that the tax does not apply.

We need to be smart and consistent here, to ensure that we do not hurt our businesses. I am thinking about the 35% surcharge on Russian fertilizer, for example. Everyone agrees on the principle, but I want to reiterate that when this surcharge is applied to orders placed and paid for in the fall, before the conflict started, it ends up penalizing our producers instead of the Russians. The government does not seem interested in creating an exemption.

If a government wants to impose measures, it needs to make sure they are done right.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have noted, our government supports the spirit of Bill S-216. I appreciate the member's comments about reducing red tape. I also look forward to the delivery in this house of the budget implementation act and am hopeful to be able to commence that work very soon.

The changes proposed in budget 2022 reflect the spirit of this bill by removing barriers to charities working in partnership with others, while including additional concrete accountability measures that both protect the integrity of the tax system and ensure that tax-assisted donations are used to support charitable activities at home and abroad.

My thanks for the opportunity to make this crystal clear for the benefit of my friend opposite, for all Canadians and for all members of the House.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the requirement for alignment with a charitable purpose is very important. It is also important that we do more to address the red tape that charitable organizations face across the board. I was very proud of the work done by the previous Conservative government around red tape reduction for business. I think we need a similar, broad red-tape reduction initiative around charities saying what all the areas of red tape are that charitable organizations have to deal with and finding ways of achieving the same objectives and necessary oversight that is required, while minimizing red tape and removing direction and control requirements. Doing so in a full and complete way, in alignment with the spirit and the text of Bill S-216 would, I think, go a very long way. Of course, the budget states the general policy direction of the government but the rubber really hits the road when we see the budget implementation act.

I wonder if the member could just share with the House when we will see the changes that are referenced in the budget with respect to direction and control. When will we see them in a budget implementation act, what can we expect and when can we expect them?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the government's position for my opposition colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I also heard him inquiring about Bill S-216 during the budget debate today, and I am very happy to have this opportunity to address the issue directly.

Let me begin by pointing out that budget 2022 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to allow a charity to provide its resources to organizations that are not qualified donees, provided that the charity meets certain requirements designed to ensure accountability. I thank the member opposite for citing the page number for that reference. This is intended to implement the spirt of Bill S-216, Effective and Accountable Charities Act, which is currently being considered by Parliament. I personally have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians and senators over the past number of months in order to better understand the spirit and to help navigate some of the concerns that have been raised.

We have proposed changes in recognition of the fact that Canadian charities carry out a wide range of important work, including vital international development and relief activities around the world and direct support to Canadians here at home.

Our government recognizes that Canada's tax rules should support their work and minimize their administrative burdens, while still ensuring accountability for how charitable resources are used. Both the charitable sector and parliamentarians have put forward a number of proposals to achieve these goals, while allowing greater flexibility for charities to support non-profit groups that may not have the ability to pursue charitable status on their own. Our government supports these efforts and our budget proposal reflects this support. Our support for charitable donations is also reflected in the fact that Canada's tax assistance for charitable donations is recognized as being among the most generous in the world, in fact.

In 2022, tax assistance associated with the charitable donations tax credit and deduction is estimated to be over $4 billion. However, given the generosity, registered charities are required to follow the rules set out in the Income Tax Act that ensure the funds are applied to charitable purposes. We recognize the need to ensure that these rules are as up to date as possible and that they support the important work that charities do. Our budget proposal reflects this. I look forward to working with this member and all parliamentarians to implement the measure in the most appropriate way.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been advocating for a very long time on the issue of direction and control. Direction and control are regulations that severely limit the ability of the charitable sector to do its job. They require that any charitable activities be fully under the direction and control of the charitable organization. This creates problems and needless red tape for organizations that are operating in Canada. It is a particular problem for organizations that are operating internationally.

As many members know and understand, the best practice of international development is when organizations in Canada are able to empower and support those who are acting in their own countries to support development, which really recognizes that the people who are in the process of doing the developing are the heroes of their own story, and the role of international organizations is merely a supporting role for those who are doing that important work. However, direction and control regulations require effectively that those organizations operating overseas be fully under the direction and control of that Canadian organization insofar as it wishes to maintain its charitable status. Not only does this create inefficiencies, needless bureaucratic red tape and millions of dollars in lawyer fees that charitable organizations have to pay every year, it also perpetuates this kind of colonial structure of donor control and the requirement for the foreign organization to be in control of the development activity that is happening on the ground.

We have been advocating for a long time for reforms to direction and control. It was a commitment in the last Conservative platform to make these reforms. It also reflected a unanimous recommendation coming out of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament, which directly called out these regulations for being neocolonial in nature. I want to recognize the work of the Senator Omidvar, who put forward a Senate public bill on this, Bill S-216. That bill passed in the Senate twice and is currently being sponsored by my colleague in this House.

With that in mind, I raised the question on this issue in the House a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I did not get a very good answer. I was cautiously pleased to see a reference to direction and control on page 195 of budget 2022, which is the first time the government has acknowledged that direction and control regulations are a problem and need to be reformed. The section references Bill S-216 directly, and that the government intends, in its budget implementation acts, to implement the spirit of that bill.

We cannot assume that the fix will fully address the issues. We cannot assume until we have seen those proposed changes what the actual change in the nature of the regulations will be, because Bill S-216 removes the “own activities” requirement and replaces it with an accountability requirement for charitable organizations. The budget does not reference removing the “own activities” requirement. It simply references trying to facilitate mechanisms for easier transfers. It claims it will implement the spirit of Bill S-216, but it does not say it will implement the letter of the bill. As we have seen before, the devil can be in the details, so although the development sector and charitable organizations across Canada are very pleased to finally see at least a recognition of the problem, we are far from certain about whether the solution will be adequate.

Therefore, I would like to hear more from the government on this, because the reference is there in the budget, but it is lacking in clarity. When can we expect the government to implement these changes? Is the government prepared to actually implement the changes in Bill S-216, removing the “own activities” requirement and replacing it with an accountability mechanism? Is the government prepared to work with the charitable sector, including those who work in international development and members of other parties, to ensure that we get it right? It would sure be a shame to get people's hopes up and then not deliver the fix that is required.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about the budgetary policy of the government. I wonder if the member could comment specifically, though, on the issues around the government's intention with respect to direction and control regulations. The government has finally recognized that there is a problem with direction and control, but there is still a lot of concern among stakeholders about what remedy the government will put forward. The budget refers to changes that are in the spirit of Bill S-216, which is a bill sponsored by a colleague of mine in the Conservative Party, but it does not address the specific measures.

I wonder if the member, who I know has some expertise in this area, can clarify for the House, and for stakeholders in the development community and elsewhere who are following this issue with great interest, what precisely the government intends to do on direction and control and when we will see those changes formally brought in.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question will again be directed toward the potential implementation of the spirit of Bill S-216, as included in the budget act.

As we have seen, the existing charitable law, or the transfer between charities and non-qualified donees or non-charities, is extremely archaic. In fact, some would say it is colonial in structure, which makes it very difficult for charities to have the right type of operation. For example, if a charity wants to give money to an overseas project, it cannot, as it is physically impossible for it to oversee every single judgment. Bill S-216 was put in place to make sure those tactical decisions could stay on the ground while there was still lots of accountability.

The challenge is in the budget document, and I have a quote from a professional in the field. He says the examples of accountability requirements set out in budget 2022 are extremely detailed, highly prescriptive and operational in nature, which will make things extremely challenging if this is implemented in this method. We want to make sure that charities are, of course, accountable and transparent to their donors, but we also want to make sure that charities have sufficient autonomy to do their work to help people, particularly in the indigenous context. Unfortunately, indigenous people have been mistreated by governments since the very beginning of our country, and some of this has been quite egregious, including the residential schools.

Instead of adopting a colonial method, why would we not give charities more autonomy, as in Bill S-216?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my Conservative colleague's interest in Bill S-216 and how important that is. The question I have today for the member is regarding foreign aid.

We did see an $8-billion investment in our military. One of the things that I have mentioned in the House is that an increase in military aid is tied to an increase in humanitarian aid, because war is a failure of development and it is a failure of humanitarian action.

Would he be supportive of a call to tie our amount spent on defence to our amount spent on humanitarian aid?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get a question from a colleague who I have the pleasure of working with on the public accounts committee. While we do not know each other terribly well, it has been good to begin to get to know him over the past few months.

I know there is interest in Bill S-216. I have heard it from other members of Parliament on the government's side and from colleagues in opposition. We shall see. The budget does talk about the spirit of Bill S-216. What that ultimately means in terms of how that will manifest is something to be discussed among colleagues in the House.

I would also be very happy to engage with the member opposite by way of a phone call, a coffee or whatever it might be to hear his thoughts on why this reform is needed and the best ways to go about it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk specifically about an area of the budget with respect to a private member's bill, Bill S-216. Bill S-216 is a piece of legislation that seeks to remove the archaic “own activities test”. The budget said that it wanted to have the spirit of Bill S-216 brought into effect.

First, will these changes be made in the Budget Implementation Act? Second, a big part of Bill S-216 is removing the “own activities test”. This is an archaic provision that forces Canadian charities to directly supervise the behaviour of other organizations they may choose to partner with. This is particularly challenging in areas that have had a long history of government misuse, such as indigenous charities and otherwise. Because of that, they often have mistrust. It is almost colonial or patriarchal in scope for Canadian charities to have to take over. To sum up quickly, will the changes appear in the BIA, and will the “own activities test” be removed?

Canada Revenue Agency

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the suggestion from my colleague in terms of procedure. It is my understanding that Bill S-216 did recently pass the Senate, and it is now in our legislative process in the House of Commons. Our government, as I mentioned earlier, is in the process of analyzing it, and we will come to a decision.

I look forward to working with my colleague opposite and all colleagues interested in this issue in order to address the proposal put forward in the Senate bill.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to exchange with my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, with whom I also sit on the foreign affairs committee. As members can imagine, over the last number of weeks we have been very busy addressing the developing situation in Ukraine and now, of course, the illegal invasion. I believe my colleague wished earlier to refer to the hon. member of Northumberland—Peterborough South, who introduced the companion bill.

I would like to begin my response to my colleague by being very transparent, both to him and to every member of the House, in saying that our government is currently analyzing carefully Bill S-216 and will communicate its position as the bill makes its way through the legislative process in the House of Commons. Indeed, there is much at stake, and we must consider very carefully how the framework for charities that work in partnership with other charities in Canada and internationally could be improved.

As my hon. colleague knows full well, Canada's tax incentives for charitable donations are among the most generous in the world, and Canadians are also very generous. They claimed $11 billion in donations made to registered charities and eligible recipients in 2020. That translated into $3.1 billion in federal tax relief for the donators through the charitable donation tax credit.

In the meantime, corporations made $3 billion in donations and received roughly $710 million in federal tax assistance through the tax deduction for charitable donations.

The generosity of this tax assistance and other tax benefits given to charitable organizations means that organizations that decide to register as a charitable organization follow a host of specific rules set out in the Income Tax Act. These rules are designed to ensure that the donated money is indeed used for charitable purposes. Through this function, these rules protect the public trust in the entire charitable sector.

The Income Tax Act, one of the main rules governing charities, allows registered charities to use their resources in two ways. They can use their resources on their own charitable activities or they can make gifts to qualified donees. This rule was designed to guarantee a high level of accountability for tax-deductible donations.

Under the current provisions of the law, charities are able to partner with intermediaries to carry out their charitable activities, but yes, they must maintain sufficient control and direction over the charity's resources. That is how the law is currently drafted. The intention here is that federal tax rules should support the work of charities while still ensuring accountability for the use of donations so that Canadians know and can be certain that the tax-assisted donations they are making to charitable causes are actually going to those causes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, direction and control regulations are a problem for the charitable sector in Canada. Direction and control regulations require that when charities are involved in activities, those activities are to be under the full direction and control of those charitable organizations. It is right that there be rules and restrictions around charitable organizations, that they be accountable for the dollars given to them and that they align their activities with their charitable purpose in accordance with the rules that exist, but this requirement of direction and control is not necessary to ensure accountability. We can have a framework that requires accountability without the restrictiveness of direction and control.

The effect of direction and control is particularly strongly felt in the area of international development because it really limits the ability of charities to form constructive partnerships with organizations in other parts of the world. The best practice in international development is to see the people in developing countries as the heroes of their own story and for donors and external organizations to be supportive, not to try to control and manage all aspects of the development process or of those communities' lives. Direction and control regulations therefore run totally counter to the best practice of self-determination in development. Effectively, they force the kind of ongoing neo-colonial view that many organizations, as well as individuals in developing countries, want to move away from.

In response to these concerns that come up repeatedly from various organizations that work in international development, and that are concerns for other charitable organizations as well, Senator Omidvar put forward a private member's bill that addresses this by moving away from direction and control while still ensuring accountability in accordance with a charitable purpose. This bill passed unanimously in the last Parliament and it passed in the same form unanimously in this Parliament. It now stands in the name of my friend, whose riding I cannot remember, in the House.

We asked the government, on February 14, what its position was on the bill. We asked three questions about direction and control, and I am following up on those questions because, unfortunately, the answers seemed to suggest the minister was not even aware of the issue. I am hopeful that maybe there was some mistake in the process of response and that we can get some clarity tonight about where the government is at on this direction and control issue.

I say to the government that this is not a partisan issue. Fixing direction and control should be a win-win. My colleague who put forward this bill had an NDP member second it as a demonstration of cross-party support. I believe that all opposition parties have been clear already about their support for this bill, so a majority of the House wants to see this bill pass, but sometimes the challenge with private members' bills is that we run out of time. We have a good idea people agree on, but it does not make it through the process quickly enough.

I would like to ask the government what its position is on Bill S-216, the direction and control bill that has now twice passed the Senate unanimously. If the government supports the bill, is it prepared to work with us to try to move this process along so that this Parliament can be the one that finally gets it done? I have worked on other issues, such as organ harvesting and trafficking, for example, where we have a good bill that everyone agrees on and yet it takes over 10 years and we are still talking about it because the clock has run out in every Parliament. I hope that will not happen in this case.

Emergencies Act

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. I have enjoyed working with her on Bill S-216 and, if I am not being too bold, walking with her to the House earlier.

I would say that this is an area of study and it is an area where we need to look at these new technologies. Unfortunately, the government has been behind on many things, including reviewing how cryptocurrency works in this context. We need to look at crowdfunding. We need to review all of these topics.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, that was a much worse answer than I was expecting. This is a question about direction and control. Again, to the minister or some minister, we want an answer about direction and control regulations.

Bill S-216 has been before this Parliament and the Senate for years in the same form. Surely the government is aware of it. Surely the government has heard from someone in the development sector. Could we please get an answer to the question? Could we please get some good news instead of nonsense talking points on completely different issues?

What is the government's position on reforming direction and control?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, direction and control regulations have limited the collaboration between charities and other organizations. That is why I am proud to sponsor Bill S-216 in the House. Bill S-216 would replace direction and control with an accountability framework that would allow for constructive and equal partnerships between charitable organizations and the communities they serve.

It has already passed the Senate unanimously. Will the government commit to working with us to ensure the bill passes during the 44th Parliament?

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day, Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity), and Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).