Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to respond to the concern Mr. Fergus raised when he said that the vagueness could give rise to an ambiguity that a government could exploit. He mentioned the Conservative Party, but it applies to any political party. In reality, the ambiguity already exists in the bill as worded and therefore allows a government of whatever party to exploit it with actions similar to those that the Harper government engaged in.
I have just read several of the articles published on the issue. In my opinion, the best way to eliminate the ambiguity would be to remove the unclear language. Despite our questions, the idea of an activity providing indirect support is still not clear.
The Elizabeth Fry Society has said that the government should eliminate the administrative obstacles that are currently depriving Canadian children with a homeless or incarcerated parent of some of the benefits and programs to which they have a right. This is about the poorest of children. As an example, is that call from the Elizabeth Fry Society indirect support? We do not know, and therein lies the problem.
That kind of ambiguity, as recognized by our witnesses and by people in the field, should not be kept. Even some of the people who sat at the consultation table proposed that the government eliminate the indirect activity clause. Their argument, which some of the witnesses repeated, was that we have to avoid vague or ambiguous wording that allows any government to attack charitable organizations as the previous government did. That I why I am introducing this amendment.