Mr. Speaker, before speaking on Bill C-224, I would like to take this opportunity to mark St. Patrick's Day and wish all our Irish friends a very happy St. Patrick's Day. I would also like to call your attention to Claude Bourguignon's excellent article published in La Presse today on this subject.
Mr. Bourguignon is a resident of my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau. In his paper, he relates the history of the massive presence of thousands of Irish Canadians from coast to coast. Claude Bourguignon is also one of the founders of the Irish Quebecers interpretation centre, located in Saint-Colomban, in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.
The principle of Bill C-224, the Charitable and Non-profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is to force non-profit organizations and charitable organizations that receives, directly or indirectly, any assistance from the public funds of Canada to disclose the remuneration and benefits paid to their directors and senior officers.
This means that the remuneration and benefits received by the directors and senior officers of charitable organizations would be disclosed upon receipt of federal government or public funds. This way, Canadians would have the assurance that public funds do not go to the directors and senior officers.
Because it is all too often perceived as a charitable activity carried out on an individual basis and in isolation, volunteer work is overlooked in our political debates on the Canadian economy. However, individual volunteers' efforts are far from negligible given their economic impact. There is an obvious need to promote volunteerism. This essential element of society is also a lifestyle and a social duty.
Yet, in recessionary times, volunteer organizations will have to use other financing methods because government assistance is getting increasingly restricted. It must also be noted that the survival of those services and programs people rely on is not guaranteed.
The old stereotypes concerning volunteers, their activities and their motivation are no longer valid. Today, two thirds of volunteers in Canada belong to the paid labour force and most of them hold full time jobs.
This bill contains a few flaws, however. First of all, clause 3, line 17, reads in part as follows:
and receives, directly or indirectly
This very broad wording could refer to a great many non-profit organizations which do not feel they have anything to do with the federal government. It should simply read, "and receives directly".
Second, the next line reads in part as follows:
from the public funds of Canada
The expression "public funds of Canada" is very ambiguous because it does not specify if these funds are strictly federal or if they include provincial and municipal funds.
The main purpose of this bill is to avoid any possibility of fraud by directors and senior officers of non-profit organizations.
All Canadians and Quebecers alike recognize that volunteerism is a great blessing to society. According to Statistics Canada, in 1987, Canada benefited from the work of over 9 million unpaid volunteers. Their work represented over one billion hours, or an average of two hours per week per job from November 1986 to October 1987, or more than 500,000 full-time jobs for a year.
The three main sectors relying on volunteer work are religious organizations, sports and recreation, as well as education and youth development.
Close to one quarter of male volunteer workers are involved in recreational endeavours, while another quarter participates in religious and educational activities. Women are more likely to do volunteer work with religious organizations, with one fifth of them in that sector.
Overall, 38 per cent of the volunteer work is related to the collection of funds, 36 per cent to the provision of information, and 35 per cent to the organization, monitoring or co-ordination of activities.
It is surprising to see that most volunteers are not older or retired people. Close to half of them are in the 25-44 age group; a little over a quarter are in the 45-64 category, while the others are 15 to 24 year olds. Volunteers in the 25-44 age group hold close to two thirds of the jobs in education and youth development, and three fifths of the jobs in sports and recreation.
As the official opposition representative and critic for issues concerning seniors, I want to point out that volunteers aged 65 and over hold close to one fifth of the jobs related to social services, including health care and support.
Moreover, the majority of volunteers come from middle-income households. Over 40 per cent of all volunteers come from households whose income is in the $30,000 to $60,000 range, 14 per cent come from households with an income of over $60,000, while only 5 per cent come from households whose income is less than $10,000.
Volunteers with a household income of over $60,000 are found mostly in organizations with an economic or international focus, the percentages being, respectively, 19 and 21 per cent. Those with a household income of less than $20,000 are usually in social services and represent nearly one-quarter of all volunteers, which reflects the high ratio of senior citizens in this area.
At least 19 per cent of volunteers in social services are aged 65 and over.
In an article that appeared in La Presse on February 6, 1993, journalist Clause Masson discussed the use of funds collected during telethons, saying that if we consider the preparations for a telethon, the need to maintain a permanent staff and also the promotion campaign, the cost of producing this kind of show is enormous and that is where a substantial amount of money collected is spent.
And that is where the organizations that conduct these telethons will have to make some changes. For instance, there is definitely something wrong when a total of $3 million is collected and only 10 or 20 per cent is donated to the actual cause. To make a telethon worthwhile, at least 50 per cent or $1.5 million should go to direct services.
We must keep telethons from being a way for people and organizations to perpetuate the so-called charity business. Just because organizations are not for profit does not mean we should trust them implicitly.
In 1991, Quebecers gave over $400 million to a myriad of organizations appealing to their generosity, that is charities, foundations, church parishes, recreational organizations, etc. Canadians on the whole, excluding business, gave roughly ten times more, that is, some $5 billion dollars, according to the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Thus, on the subject of transparency, it would be interesting if the organizations receiving federal government or public assistance were required to reveal the benefits and salaries of their officers.
Canadians could then verify that public funds used to support charitable organizations do not simply go into the pockets of the people administering them. In conclusion, subject to the two points I raised earlier, we would be prepared to support the spirit of this bill.