Therein lies the problem. Thank you very much for that explanation. We saw it with the previous government's witch hunt on charitable organizations that were trying to get their point of view across. We have charitable organizations that work very hard on behalf of Canadians. Some are in the environmental sector, as Mr. Poilievre just mentioned, others are in the social sector.
I just came from a press conference with the Elizabeth Fry Society. It is actively working to put into place an administrative structure that doesn't penalize Canadian children who are in irregular situations, whether their parents are homeless or their parents are incarcerated. Currently, the Canada child benefit and the housing first strategy don't apply to those children, and these are the children who are the most disadvantaged.
The work that they're doing in the community to help those children necessarily has a political, though non-partisan, aspect to it. What they're doing is trying to promote the idea that we should be treating every child equally in our country. That's a value that is subscribed to by the vast majority of Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians subscribe to the idea that an environmental organization should actually be able to push on behalf of the environment to ensure, for example, that the government decisions that are made don't have a profoundly negative impact on the environment.
It seems to me that what we have had is a handcuffing of those organizations that are working in the best interests of society. The government introduced some amendments that have been welcomed by the charitable sector, but as you know, Mr. Chair, we've also had major concerns raised by the charitable sector about the vagueness of some of the language, and we'll be coming to that later on under the NDP amendments. I find it a bit perplexing to simply say that we are going to continue to allow Revenue Canada to crack down on organizations that are speaking out on behalf of the social, economic or environmental betterment of Canada.
Mr. Poilievre said his amendments didn't need any explanation, and I disagreed because they are very complex, these particular Conservative amendments. Now that he's explained it, I'm going to vote against it.
What started under the previous government, the Conservative government, was an attempt to muzzle organizations for speaking out for the best interests of Canadians. I don't want to see a country where that happens. I decried it and my party decried it when it happened under the former Conservative government.
The Liberal government has brought forward some amendments, but the vagueness of the language is leaving a big question mark in many people's minds. This amendment would take us back to the starting point, allowing Revenue Canada to crack down on whatever organization it doesn't like, or whatever organization the government of the day doesn't like, which would be a major step backwards.