Mr. Speaker, this evening we are debating Bill S-217, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day in Canada. I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this initiative and we hope it will help not only to recognize Quebeckers and Canadians who espouse the values of generosity, altruism and compassion, but also to encourage more people to give generously.
It would be difficult for us to oppose the introduction of such a day not only because it promotes values such as generosity, altruism and compassion, but also because November 15 is already a recognized date in North America. The Association of Fundraising Professionals, a U.S. based agency with over 200 chapters around the world, including in Quebec, has been celebrating this day since 1986 in order to underscore the contributions philanthropists make to enriching the planet.
This bill, if passed, would make official this event that occurs every November 15—an event that a number of Quebec, Canadian and international organizations have already been celebrating, as I was saying.
But how will this bill raise more awareness in people about philanthropy and encourage them to become more philanthropic, and why would this be a good idea? Traditionally, Quebeckers gave less because they felt it was up to the state or the Church to be in charge of funding for health and social problems.
For example, in the 1980s in Quebec, philanthropy was associated more with the Church, which helped meet people's needs at a time when the state could not, or with volunteer activities. It was harder for individuals or private companies that worked full time in philanthropic endeavours. Little by little, however, specialized agencies developed in order to connect with the general public and to raise awareness to their cause.
For a long time, Quebeckers were considered to be less generous, but nowadays, Quebeckers are giving more and more to charitable organizations. According to Imagine Canada, from 2004 to 2007, Quebeckers increased the value of their donations by 24%, giving $1.17 billion of the $12 billion donated annually in Canada. That is the biggest increase in the country. Some might think that they give an average of $200 per year compared to the $437 Canadians give. Some might think that they do less than other Canadians. However, that assumption is not valid. According to Épisode, a company that does fundraising in Quebec, it is not true that Quebeckers are less generous than Canadians. That misconception is based on Canadians' tax returns, but Quebeckers make a lot of donations for which they do not claim the tax credits they are entitled to.
What kind of philanthropy are we talking about? An international philanthropy day would give us an opportunity to reflect on the new strategic or capitalist philanthropy and on why wealthy donors, business people and private companies decide to use patronage to boost their image or to play a certain role in public policy. We should reflect on the fine line between traditional, authentic, sincere philanthropy and philanthropy designed to further the donors' financial interests.
Recently, we have seen a shift from traditional philanthropy to strategic philanthropy where upper-class individuals try to apply private enterprise models to charitable organizations to achieve concrete results. These people are known as philanthrocapitalists. They invest huge sums of money in health, education, the environment and the fight to end poverty. In many cases, they set up foundations, such as the $30 billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose projects include helping to develop medicines for third world countries.
There are others, such as Guy Laliberté and his One Drop Foundation. The Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon created an innovative social PPP—a public philanthropic partnership—with the Government of Quebec.
I wanted to highlight these examples to help us reflect on the type of philanthropy people are engaging in.
Above all, we must ask ourselves about the government's role in providing assistance to the population. As we know, the government has important strategies and programs in areas such as health, education and poverty. This is what is known as the social safety net, and it requires government involvement and commitment.
For instance, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, the gap between the wealthy and middle class, and those living in poverty in this country has continued to grow over the past 10 years for all age groups, reaching 12%. In addition, some 6% of Canadian seniors and 15% of Canadian children are living in poverty. What is more, the federal government is investing less in benefits for the unemployed than any other member country of the OECD, which is undermining its effectiveness when it comes to reducing inequalities.
Such a day would allow us to reflect on the role of the Canadian government in relation to all these social issues and all its obligations to Canadians.
I will give another example. Although Canada is committed to setting the development assistance budget at 0.7% of GNP by 2015, today it stands at a meagre 0.31% of GNP. If we maintain current increases, the development assistance budget will reach 0.7% only towards 2037.
Once again philanthropy should not make up for the government's failures. Earlier, we talked about many organizations that raise funds for such causes as breast cancer, MS and all neuro-degenerative diseases. The government must also assume its responsibilities. A day to highlight the contribution of philanthropic organizations would also make it possible to take stock of the government's responsibility.
We know that corporate philanthropy—with its significant impact on international development assistance and achieving the millennium development goals—is looked on favourably. However, the state should take the necessary steps to ensure that it takes the lead in the fight against poverty, before turning to the private sector.
Philanthropy has the appearance of a new social actor, a stop-gap measure for the state when it comes to poverty. There is cause to question the fine line between traditional, authentic and sincere philanthropy and a sort of strategic philanthropy spurred by financial interests.
Finally, the debate on Bill S-217 provides a good opportunity to remind the government that it must step up its fight against poverty, both at home and abroad, as well as its environmental action. The failures of the state in these areas are the main justification for philanthropy.