Debates of Oct. 21st, 2010

Opposition Motion—Federal spending power

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

National Philanthropy Day Act

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

moved that Bill S-203, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House this evening and bring forward a private member's bill that stands in my name. The bill comes from the other place and is called an act respecting a national philanthropy day.

This will come as interesting news to most Canadians, insomuch as many Canadians believe there already is a National Philanthropy Day, and in fact there is. Last year, November 15 was declared as the first National Philanthropy Day. Our Minister of Heritage at that point made that declaration. Today we are now talking about putting legislation through to backstop that commitment by our Minister of Heritage, declaring November 15 henceforth as National Philanthropy Day.

There are a number of people in our country who know what philanthropy is and who philanthropists are. However, it is important for us to go through this. I will give my perspective of who I believe are the philanthropists, what makes them unique and why it is important that we have a day that recognizes the contributions of those individuals.

As I was thinking about what makes a philanthropist or what is philanthropy, I started to think about my upbringing and what my thoughts were when I heard of philanthropy, or when I started to understand what that word meant. To a great degree, I heard the word used in newscasts. I would hear about a philanthropist who had done this or a philanthropist who had done that. Usually these were people who had great wealth and were making contributions or large gifts in kind to institutions. These were worthwhile and they were important declarations and contributions to important institutions. When I started to think about this, I wondered if that was the only type of philanthropist.

Canadians need to have an inclusive view of who philanthropists are and what philanthropy is. I would use the definition that a philanthropist is somebody who will give of themselves to another person to benefit another person's life.

It is important for us to consider all of those people who continue, on a daily, monthly and weekly basis, to give time, energy and dollars to causes in which they believe. It is important we become very inclusive as to who we are declaring philanthropists as part of this legislation and what in fact philanthropy is.

When I was in Sunday school, I heard the story of a widow who came to give an offering. She had a couple of copper coins and she gave them. There were other people who were giving great gifts. They were giving large amounts of money. I remember the story ended with the declaration that the person who had given the most was the person who had given what most of us would have thought was the least. The lady who had given her last couple of coins she needed to survive on had given freely. The other people, while their gifts were much larger, had given out of their wealth. They had only given a part of what they owned. We have to recognize that there are those people who every day give of themselves, give more than they probably can afford to give to make somebody else's life better.

When I think of my own upbringing, my family was a family that gave. When I was younger, my parents did not have a lot. My brothers and I have this ongoing joke that if there was a pie, or muffins, or cinnamon buns sitting on the counter, we would always have to ask if they were for us or for the neighbours. The joke is that we were a bunch of hungry boys and we basically starved because more often than not, it was for the neighbours. To this day, we go over to my mom's house and we often pester my her by asking if the food on the table is for us or if it is for the neighbours.

This has become a joke in our family because, in truth, my mom is one of those philanthropists, those people who stand up and say, “It does not matter what is going on in my own life. I am going to encourage somebody else by giving my time and energy to support someone who could really use it”.

Interestingly, two weeks ago I arrived home and my wife was making cinnamon buns with my daughters. I walked in and grabbed at one of the pans of cinnamon buns, and my wife said, “No, don't take those”. I asked why not and she said they were for the neighbours. I guess history repeats itself, and I am proud that virtue is being taught and passed on to my kids. It is something that I think most members in the House can relate to at one level or another.

Our government believes very strongly in the opportunities that should be available, and we should make it easier for people to give to the causes they strongly believe in. Over the last number of budgets, our government has brought in different initiatives that have made it easier for Canadians to give donations of different types to charities of their choice. There is now an opportunity for people to pass on investments with tax provisions for those donations.

We also have an opportunity in this country now to make contributions of gifts in kind of lands that are to be protected for ecological reasons. Our government believes that while it can do important things about the gaps in our social safety net and a number of other things, it is not the only partner in this effort. There need to be opportunities and encouragement for people to stand and support their neighbours and important causes as well.

Our Prime Minister and finance minister have led by example through bringing forward legislation, but one of the more poignant moments in the last couple of years that gripped all Canadians was the earthquake in Haiti. There was an outpouring by Canadians for the people who were suffering in Haiti, having experienced one of the most devastating natural disasters I can recall. This, of course, was on top of the fact that they had so little to begin with.

I recall very clearly that people lined up to make donations. It was not just people who were wealthy. It was people from all walks of life. It was such an encouragement to see our Prime Minister standing in line with his wife making a personal donation to this cause. This is a demonstration of what it is to be a philanthropist.

In my own community I saw countless people lined up to volunteer for different charity events and provide their support. There were kids clubs in my constituency that believed they might be able to contribute to help in the devastation in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

More recently, Canadians had the opportunity to donate to causes in Newfoundland. There was a group of students in my constituency that gave to Haiti, which was important because it saw the devastation there, but another group said it saw a lady on the news who had lost her house and it wanted to find out who she was because it wanted to help her. These young people are also philanthropists; they are demonstrating philanthropy.

We know the devastation that many people in Africa have experienced as a result of natural disasters and a number of other things, including the AIDS epidemic and the mismanagement of many of the nations in terms of governance. Many people in our country have stood alongside these folks in different ways.

This past Christmas, I had an opportunity to hold a fundraiser in my constituency for an orphanage in Africa. It is an orphanage that predominantly brings in kids who are orphaned as a result of AIDS.

We as a community raised in excess of $20,000 at a breakfast. We then did a number of other things. In the end we raised more than $250,000 to help support this orphanage that now cares for more than 2,200 kids on a daily basis.

Philanthropy comes in many ways, shapes and forms, and of course there is the legacy that has been established in Canada. Most predominantly, when we look back on the history of this great nation, we can look at the legacy of church groups and church organizations in our country. We look at the Catholic Church, which established missions early on in the exploration and development of this country, and many of those groups continue today to do good work. We look to a number of other churches that may have less of a history in this nation, but are doing important work, when we look at inner city ministries, when we look at the Salvation Army that continues to reach out to those most in need.

When we look at these different organizations and these groups that do amazing work, we can see that they are philanthropists all the way through their process. If it be the people who are standing to collect the money, if be it the Salvation Army bell ringer in the local supermarket, if it be the person who is out there collecting donations of clothes, furniture or different things to be sold at the thrift stores, if it be the people who bring food from their homes so that they can be served at soup kitchens or the people who write the cheque to help support these things, there are so many different philanthropists along the way.

I believe that if we are to have a bill that recognizes philanthropy and philanthropists in this country, we have to make it absolutely clear that we will recognize all of these people. It is not to be the recognition of those people who would otherwise have statues of bronze located at the entrances of hospitals, or those people who will be on the front pages of the newspaper as they hand over their $4 million cheques for a good cause. These people are absolutely important and we want to recognize them in this legislation, but we also want to recognize those people who give out of their poverty, in time, in money or in some other manifestation. I think it is important that we as Canadians make that declaration clear as we proceed with the recognition of philanthropists and philanthropy in this country on November 15.

This summer I had the unfortunate opportunity to spend a fair bit of time at the University of Alberta Hospital. My brother, who is just younger than I, was diagnosed with leukemia. I would spend a fair bit of time there on the weekends. As I was walking through the hospital in between treatments, I noticed that there were several opportunities at every corridor to recognize people who had made contributions.

At that point I knew I would be bringing forward this bill in the House, and I thought it was interesting, so I spent a fair bit of time to try to understand a little bit about the people who were recognized on these walls. Very, very quickly I recognized that there were people of all walks of life, both rich and poor, who had given. That is one of the great things about philanthropy. It is the one place we can all contribute. It is the most democratic exercise of supporting fellow Canadians and fellow citizens in this world.

It is my privilege to support and to bring forward this bill in the House of Commons, and I hope members from all parties will help recognize the men and women who have and who will continue to build this country into the great country that it is.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the speech my colleague has made on philanthropy.

This Liberal bill has been a very important bill that has come from the Senate. Senators Grafstein and Mercer have worked on this for a number of years and put a lot of time into it. I am hopeful that everybody in the House will support it.

I want to ask him about one specific issue, just to get his point of view in terms of giving. As all members know, there is a very different benefit to giving money to politics than there is to giving money to charities in Canada. It is a much greater tax credit for supporting political parties, because politicians make the rules.

I wonder if my colleague would be supportive of changing the tax laws so that giving to the Heart and Stroke Foundation or the local food bank would be of equal benefit at tax time as giving to a political party.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has long supported this bill, and I do thank him for his support and his continued effort. Had I not scrambled to bring this bill forward in the House, I know it would have fallen under my colleague's name. It's wonderful to see, on a bill like this, that we can work together across party lines.

In terms of the tax credit, I think this is an issue that we as parliamentarians do need to address. I think there are people from all sides who believe that there need to be some changes in this respect.

Today as we are talking about philanthropy and philanthropists, I think it is important to recognize that people do not give in this country simply because they get a tax credit. Yes, it is good, and yes, it is a benefit, but people give because they believe in helping others. This bill is to recognize those people who give of themselves for the benefit of somebody else.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that in 2008, because of the recession, charitable donations in both the United States and Canada took a substantial drop. The member will also know that billionaires such Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have not only committed to give half of their net worth to charities, while they are alive or upon death, but they have challenged other billionaires in the United States to follow suit. They have a fairly substantial group on board on this.

I am not aware of any similar activity in Canada on that front. Could the member tell me if he is aware of any activities on the part of billionaires in Canada to get together and follow what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are spearheading in the United States?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, I do not know any billionaires. I do not know many Canadians who do. There are a few in the country, and I leave it to them to make decisions as to how they will give.

Philanthropy and philanthropists are characterized not by being forced by somebody, by moral suasion or other things, but by making a decision in and of themselves to give. I think it is absolutely important that we move from the recognition of just the billionaires and millionaires and recognize people who give, full stop, regardless of the size of the donation. There are people in this country who give day in and day out of their time and effort.

There is a famous saying that success is measured not by what you have but by what you give. It should be measured by that. I subscribe to that and I think the hon. member does.

In terms of billionaires, I do not know any and I do not know if there is any plan for them to give. However, we need to recognize all the people who give, and that is why I think this bill is important. I think it is important that all members of Parliament endorse the idea that we recognize all those people who continue to give in and of themselves.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-203. The history of this bill goes back a ways.

For a number of years, Senator Jerry Grafstein and Senator Mercer have been working on producing this bill so that we can officially make November 15 philanthropy day in Canada. Both senators have a long history of philanthropic involvement, community involvement, and giving back to the community. They worked very hard at this.

In the last House it was S-217. It passed the Senate. It came to this place, and we moved it through the House. Then, and after prorogation it died and came back as S-203. It went to the Senate again, and I intended to bring it forward. As the member from Peace River said, he scrambled a bit and brought it forward.

The bottom line is that we now have an opportunity to come together as a Parliament and get this bill through.

It is important. It matters to many people. Like everyone in the House, I guess, I have been involved in a lot of not-for-profit organizations. I have been the President of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Nova Scotia, and I have served on the national board. I have worked with literacy, food banks, junior achievement, CNIB, and a number of organizations. We come to meet some fabulous people who give an awful lot to their communities.

When I travel in my own community, I am constantly amazed at the dedicated work that people do every day, like the people who gather in a church in the north end of Dartmouth every Wednesday to provide food to the poor. There are people like Doris McArcher, who has a clothing depot in a church in Dartmouth, where she collects clothes for people who need them. She does not ask them if they need help. In the winter, she provides the coats, pants, scarves, and hats because she knows that if people come to get her help it is because they need it.

A lot of faith-based people are doing this kind of work. They do this in the belief that God would want them to. There are people who do not believe in God who also do this kind of work. Whatever the motivation, these good people should be recognized.

In my own life, I have two active children who play hockey and soccer. They paddle on the great lakes in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. My daughter is in Brownies, tennis, and golf. Even at the school, it is important to have volunteers because of the crisis in funding these days. None of these things would be possible without people who would coach, manage, and do the kinds of things that make it possible for kids to enjoy the activities that we want them to be part of.

In the church I go to, there are people like my wife who teach Sunday school, there are people in the choir, and there are people who fill other roles. These are all philanthropic acts and they are important.

We should never diminish the importance of people who give money. It is so important to give to those who do not have. My sister is involved in the Association of Fundraising Professionals. She is a fundraiser with the Canadian Cancer Society and is involved in AFP organizations like Imagine Canada, which is helping to build the philanthropic sector.

We know that recent times have been challenging. An Imagine Canada report from last August quotes a few statistics on the difficulties that charities are facing. For example, more than half of charities are experiencing increased demand for their products and services. Compared with 2009, more charities are reporting that they are at risk, experiencing increased demand, or both. The percentage of charities under high stress has increased to 17%. The financial situation of many charities has stagnated or deteriorated slightly. On average, charities report that revenues have dropped by 1.1%, while expenditures have risen by almost 4%.

It is always a challenge to get people to work in the not-for-profit sector, but now it is particularly difficult. Operating charities report that the average number of paid staff has decreased by 4.4%. In spite of the challenges, however, the level of confidence is high.

As a group, charity leaders are remarkably confident in the future, because the people who work in charities, in the not-for-profit sector, are optimistic people. They see the challenges but they do not shy away from them. They see the obstacles, but they decide that they are going to overcome them.

I think that this is an important thing. My colleague from Peace River spoke about growing up in his family. In my own family, which was a large, kind of boisterous family, we belonged to the Foster Parents Plan. We would make our donations, and we would write letters back and forth to understand what was happening with children in other parts of the world who were not quite so fortunate.

It is interesting to look at who gives money in Canada. It is not always people in big cities. It is not always people with deep pockets. Quite often it is people in places like Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and Pictou County. Some of the people one would think are not doing well economically are the ones who pitch in and help. It is part of the ethic of growing up in a small community. It is the old ethic of pitching in and helping out. If somebody's house is on fire, the place is rebuilt. If somebody needs help, a bake sale is held. The spirit of giving that seems to exist in many parts of small-town Canada carries on today.

There is no question that there are challenges in the fundraising sector for the not-for-profit organizations. People who raise money, like Peter Bessey from Scotiabank, who is heading up a campaign for the Canadian Cancer Society in Nova Scotia, face certain challenges. We have the power in this place to recognize these people. We can use the power that comes with being a member of Parliament. We know that what these people do matters. We know that what they do builds a better country. It is important that we take the opportunity, like the one that presents itself in Bill S-203, to recognize the people who build a better world.

Earlier this year, I had the chance to speak here about a woman named Ruth Goldbloom, who was the driving force behind Pier 21. My leader, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, had a chance to go to Pier 21. He had a chance to connect with relatives in his past. Pier 21 would not have happened if Ruth Goldbloom had not been the driving force. Ruth recognizes that all the people who have worked at Pier 21 are important, whether they have given $1 million, as seven people have, or whether they work in the gift shop to help people when they visit Pier 21. She believes that all these people deserve to be recognized.

The voluntary sector in Canada is huge and it cannot be replaced by paid work. It cannot be replaced by people who do things professionally. It cannot be replaced because there is not the commitment, the optimism, and the sheer dedication that happens in the voluntary sector in Canada. It is incumbent upon this House to recognize the people who do that work and in some way tell them that we appreciate them.

I am looking at an article in the Toronto Star entitled “Women are Changing the Face of Philanthropy”. The article refers to the hon. Margaret Norrie McCain, who is a great philanthropist in Nova Scotia. I will quote from this article:

Many women today use their influence to give more strategically, and in different ways, than men or women did in the past....They have adopted new models, such as giving circles, to bring like-minded donors together to pool their resources in support of a common cause. “Women give to organizations that they have some connection with,” says Maria Antonakos of Opus Philanthropic Strategies Inc.

Philanthropy has been around a long time in many different ways at many different levels. But it does change. It does reflect the marketplace. When we have a recession, as we have had over the last couple of years and continue to have, it hurts, and it disproportionately hurts organizations that deal with those people who need the most help.

We should recognize the work that people do. We should recognize those who give in small ways, but also the people who give big money, like those in my own community: the Risleys, the Rowes, the O'Regans, the Fountains, the Goldblooms, the Sobeys, the Jodeys, the Keatings, the McFees and Smithers, the Conrad family, the Spatsis, the Flemings, the Edwards, and the Dennis family, who own the Chronicle Herald.

These are the people who build Canada. Their work cannot be replaced. It is not about financially rewarding the people who are raising money. It is incumbent upon us and the Parliament of Canada to tell them that we understand what they do, we know it is important, we know it builds a better country. It builds a better community for all of us. We want to say thanks by making November 15 philanthropy day in Canada. I urge all members to support this bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill S-203. By the way, I rose in this House in support of this bill exactly one year ago today.

My party supports this bill. We are in favour of this initiative and we hope that it will provide a way not only of recognizing the contributions of numerous Quebeckers and Canadians who live by the values of generosity, altruism and compassion, but also of encouraging more people to give generously.

As many colleagues who have risen before me have said, these values are learned when people are very young. Often, it is our parents who teach us to be generous. The hon. member who introduced this bill in the House said that he had been taught generosity at a young age. I think that this was also true in my father’s case. He was a policeman and he taught us that some families did not have food. And so when he had enough money, he was able to help little children by giving them a small reward, as no one in their homes was in a position to give them any cash.

Many Quebeckers live by the principle of generosity. It goes without saying that it would be hard to stand up in this House and argue against the creation of such a day, not only because these groups promote values, such as generosity, altruism and compassion, but also because November 15 is already a familiar date in North America. The Association of Fundraising Professionals, an organization that originated in the United States and now comprises over 200 chapters worldwide, including one in Quebec, has been celebrating this day since 1990 as a way of highlighting the contribution of philanthropists, who make the planet a richer place. Philanthropy is also about enriching the heart.

This bill, if passed, will make official the event that occurs every year on November 15, an event that Quebec, Canadian and international organizations already celebrate. The recognition of this House will only serve to give the day even more weight. It will give it even more credibility and, I hope, will make more people aware of the benefits of philanthropy.

Now, what in this bill exactly might help to increase awareness among people, and encourage them to engage in philanthropic endeavours? Allow me to talk a little about the situation in Quebec in this regard, so that people can get a better sense of why it is appropriate to increase public awareness of philanthropy.

Traditionally, Quebeckers gave less because they felt it was up to the state or the church to provide 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 to identify individuals or private companies that worked full-time in philanthropic endeavours. That is no longer true today, because we are seeing a shift from traditional philanthropy to much more strategic philanthropy where upper-class individuals try to apply business models to charitable organizations to achieve concrete results.

With the waning of the church and the rise of the welfare state, Quebeckers felt it was the state's responsibility to look after the poor. Little by little, though, philanthropic organizations developed, were recognized by the public and raised awareness of their causes.

For a long time, Quebeckers were considered to be less generous, but nowadays, Quebeckers are giving more and more to charitable organizations. Huge donations of over $500,000 are on the rise. But Quebeckers are known for making small donations. Fifty-one per cent of them give between $1 and $2,000. This was reflected in the donations made following the earthquake in Haiti. More people in Quebec than in the rest of Canada made donations, but Quebeckers' donations were smaller. So I do have to qualify what I said.

According to a generosity index measured by Épisode, a fundraising consulting firm and Léger Marketing, Quebeckers are still half as generous as other Canadians. On average, they give $220, compared to $437 for other Canadians. While 76% of Canadians gave to charity in 2009, only 69% of Quebeckers did.

This statement may not be entirely correct. It is misleading to say that Quebeckers are less generous than other Canadians. They might make a number of donations that they never claim on their taxes.

We see here that Quebeckers donate, but might not claim as much on their taxes. Whether this statement is true or false, this debate about whether Quebeckers are generous or not from a philanthropic point of view, illustrates the need to raise more public awareness about the benefits of philanthropy.

It is impossible to ignore the significant support from philanthropists in society, both regionally and globally in areas where government does not meet public needs. Today, needs are great and measures from the Canadian government and other governments are not successfully reducing poverty, either domestically or internationally. Instead of addressing the problem, governments prefer to rely on altruistic or strategic humanitarian agencies to make up for the shortfall.

This means that we cannot only count on philanthropy to help everyone. The government still has a very important role to play, but it comes up short and ends up relying more and more on philanthropists to provide aid and services. Let us use this day as an opportunity to remind the Canadian government of the aid and services it has to provide the public.

For example, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the gap between the rich and the middle and poorer classes has grown steadily in the past 10 years. This is a concern, and the public should not have to carry the burden.

I believe that the general public steps up to the plate when a charity asks for help or when an agency asks for support for its cause to help research in areas such as health, for instance.

We know that people give generously. Just think of the Multiple Sclerosis Society or Alzheimer's Society. I often participate in the events that they organize in my riding. It is evident that people are interested in this issue. We also see that the government has failed to provide adequate resources, whether for research or to help organizations that establish activities requiring the support of many volunteers.

It would also be a day to think about all the volunteers who work for these organizations, who give generously of their time, and who believe in these activities and in improving living conditions.

In my riding, the Fondation Gilles Kègle comes to mind. Gilles Kègle is a street nurse who provides a great deal of help to the most disadvantaged. Without the support of the general public who donate to this foundation, he would never be able to help as many people as he does. Furthermore, without the help of the hundreds of volunteers, this generosity would not be as effective. We know that this organization meets a very great need. In this context, philanthropy is a new social actor. I am also thinking about the new shift from traditional philanthropy to strategic philanthropy.

Earlier on, a colleague spoke—I no longer remember the name of his riding—and he said that he did not know any rich people in Canada who could give very generously. I would like to point out that the Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon innovated by creating a social PPP, a philanthropic public partnership, with the Government of Quebec. This led to the creation of the Québec en forme program, which establishes various networks of schools, child care facilities, CLSCs and community organizations in order to encourage healthy lifestyles for children from the most disadvantaged areas. We have witnessed the development of new ways to better help society and we have the utmost respect for what the Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon has undertaken.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an incredible honour for me to stand in this House as a representative of the people of the region of Timmins—James Bay. I am proud to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party tonight on Bill S-203, National Philanthropy Day Act.

There is a false philosophy that I think has corrupted much of our world in the last century, a philosophy that says people only do things out of self-interest. We see that with the great social heretic Ayn Rand and her belief that greed was good, that if people were greedy the world would somehow be a better place, and this idea of enlightened self-interest that people are somehow helping the world by looking out for number one, and of course, the people who fall by the wayside are left to fall by the wayside.

We know this argument is flawed on so many different levels, because people do so much without a thought of self-interest. In fact, I would argue that people are fundamentally motivated to do and to change the world, and to help their neighbour because they feel compelled to do it, not just because they feel good about it and not because it makes them feel somehow better but because it is what is in our fundamental DNA as human beings.

Whenever there is an issue, whenever there is a crisis, we will see the goodness of human beings, and I would say, the goodness of human beings overriding sometimes the more negative aspects of human beings.

In my riding of Timmins—James Bay, whenever there is a house fire, the neighbours come together. They start to look out for each other. In fact, I have found that the poorer the community, often the more people are willing to give.

This is the desire, perhaps, for us to examine the issue of a philanthropy day. I am not quibbling with the idea behind this motion; the only question I would have is that I do not think many people would consider themselves philanthropists.

“Philanthropy” comes from the original Greek words, and there are various Greek words for love or for care. There is “eros”, which we would use as “erotic”, the physical form of love. There is “philo”, which becomes philanthropy. There is the other word for love, which is “agape”, which is a much deeper, spiritual, religious love. Philanthropy comes from this original Greek word.

What it has come to mean, specifically within our culture, is the certain class of people who give from their excess, the millionaires and billionaires, as one member referred to. My colleague from Alberta said this should not be a day just about recognition of millionaires and billionaires, it should be a recognition of all those who give. That is certainly something I think we can all agree on.

However, the term “philanthropist” does, by its general nature, exclude everyone who gives. It has a much more specific meaning. If we were looking to talk about everyone who gives, perhaps we would call it “national help your neighbour day”.

The philanthropist tradition is certainly known in the United States, probably more so than anyplace else. In the 19th century, there were the great billionaires, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Guggenheims. Anybody who has ever been to New York City will see the immense wealth of these mass, giant capitalist families. After a certain point of building their industries, they started to put their wealth into philanthropic organizations.

In my region of Timmins—James Bay, we have a Carnegie library in the town of New Liskeard. There is a Carnegie library in Sudbury. The Guggenheims did a phenomenal amount of work in terms of bringing modern art to New York. They did that from their position of immense wealth.

To encourage people like the modern-day Rockefellers and ones who are further below them, we have instituted tax credits so that we encourage the wealthy and people with money to put aside some of their wealth. They get usually very impressive tax benefits for doing that. There is a role for that within our society.

It is a role to replace the social fabric of our country, which is becoming more and more tattered every day. I think this is where we see in the United States that they have taken a wrong turn in terms of philanthropy. We now see a new age of great philanthropy in the United States that also very much mirrors the 19th century where there were immense wealth disparities.

There is a book out about how these modern billionaires such as the Gates, the Buffetts and the Bonos who have such immense wealth will somehow save the planet.

It is very similar to the 19th century with the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and that age of philanthropy. At that time, the conditions of average society in America and North America was brutal. We have to be careful about lionizing such a massive wealth gap in our country so that the super rich are somehow seen in this modern theory of being able to save the planet.

That is not to take away, in any way, from the work they are doing. It is immense work. We need to encourage them and ensure that the philanthropists in our society are playing specific roles to better our society. For example, the Gates Foundation plays a role that government does not do.

However, we have to ensure that we do not expect it to replace the existing social fabric that we have developed co-operatively within the country over the last 140 years. This has made Canada very humane country, a country where we have looked out for each other.

We also need to remember, in recognizing the philanthropists, that we have to recognize the fact that people give so much of themselves without the idea of a tax break, without the idea that they will be ever recognized. That is a much more fundamental driver.

For example, when I was 19 years and my ears were as big as they are now, but I was only 120 pounds, I decided there was a much better role for me in the world than going to school. I became involved in a movement called the Catholic Worker Movement. The Catholic Worker Movement was founded by Dorothy Day, the incredible bohemian writer from New York City who worked with the poor. Dorothy inspired generations of young Catholics to get involved and to work with the poor. However, Dorothy had an amazing principle. She said that if people wanted to donate, they could but there would be no tax credits. She felt that everyone who donated should donate because they actually felt it was important to donate as opposed to just because a foundation or a large organization would donate.

I was about 22 when we bought a house in downtown Toronto. I did not have two pennies to put together. People came together and said that they supported it. We bought a house. We had real estate. Every month, people came with donations and wanted to help the work we were doing with men coming out of prisons, with refugees, with people on the street.

In fact, people wanted to help so much that we would come home some days and we could not get in our door because some school would have donated hundreds of bags of clothing. It would take days to figure out what to do with them. People wanted to give. People wanted to make a difference. Any of our members on any side of the House will say that when there is an issue where there is a cause, people will come forward. They do not necessarily see themselves as philanthropists. It is just what they do.

When we move forward with this, and it is a bill to be supported, the work of public foundations and heritage buildings that are handed over by multimillionaires to be part of a public trust or the money set aside from men and women, who would otherwise build themselves an extra fifth, or sixth or seventh house in the Cayman Islands, to be put into some public good or some public project is to be recommended, and we support the issue of tax credits.

We support the role of philanthropy within our society, but we also have to recognize that we are not all philanthropists just because we give. The meaning of it has become much more specific to a group of people who are within that realm whose names appear on the various boards and foundations, the philanthropists who we recognize.

However, let us remember that so much of what makes our country move, so much of what makes our country great and so much of what makes our country look out for those who are falling behind, for those who are hungry and for those who are in prison, comes from the general goodness of the people here, the people there and the people all over who give because they would give anyway without ever thinking their name would appear on a plaque or they would get a tax break. They give because it is what they do.

There needs to be some way to recognize that within our society. I would like to move a motion but I do not know what we would call it. At the end day we would maybe call it national Canadian day because we are a society that cares and we have to continue in that process.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill S-203 which calls upon the government to set aside November 15 of each year as national philanthropy day.

Philanthropy is indisputably intertwined with the Canadian way of life. From our earliest days as colonies, helping others, volunteering time and extending compassion and empathy to others have shaped who we are today. These qualities, complemented by the dedication and generosity of our founding peoples, have become intrinsic Canadian values.

The tradition of philanthropy is well established. The contributions of our fellow citizens are numerous and diverse and they can be seen in all areas of life. They can be seen in the areas of health, education, social services, sport and leisure, as well as arts and culture. Canadians are generous and contribute generously to others.

This generosity is manifested in different ways: through charitable giving, by volunteering time to charitable and non-profit organizations, and helping a neighbour or colleague. The motivations to give are as varied as the individuals who give. People give their time to support a cause they believe in, to make their contribution to society and to share their skills or even develop new skills.

According to the 2007 Canada survey of giving, volunteering and participating, Canadian selflessness is vibrant and evolving. Approximately 23 million Canadians had made a financial donation to a charitable or other non-profit organization, which represents $10 billion, a 2.9% increase in the number of donors and a 12% increase in donations compared to 2004.

In 2007, Canadians volunteered almost 2.1 billion hours, equivalent to more than 1 million full-time jobs, a 4.2% increase in hours compared to 2004, and this is in addition to direct support, support not given through an organization. Eighty-four per cent of Canadians provide support or assistance to their neighbours or individuals outside of their families.

Today, volunteering and giving are so well-rooted in the social fabric of Canada that not only do Canadians contribute as individuals, but numerous corporations and institutions give generously often through foundations. More and more corporations and institutions are offering volunteer programs to their employees.

Corporations are aware of the power of their philanthropy on the social and economic capital of our communities. Philanthropy can help corporations build their reputations and also contributes to healthy and strong communities. Furthermore, according to a survey published by Imagine Canada in 2007, corporations that support their communities foster pride and loyalty among their employees.

In addition to significant financial contributions, corporations. such as Molson Coors and the National Bank of Canada, support volunteering through programs for their employees. For example, Molson Coors provides a paid day to its employees to spend participating in a team-based volunteer activity.

In 2005, the National Bank of Canada created the “Our hearts are with you” program to encourage its current and retired employees to volunteer. This program was designed to support, recognize and reward employees' efforts and to enhance the impact of their volunteer work. This program contributes to the success of the many fundraisers and supports the organization of events.

For example, in 2009, for the sixth straight year 1,100 employees from several provinces raised approximately $330,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. That very same year, National Bank of Canada employees, combined with a matching program offered by their employer, contributed over $2.7 million to the United Way campaign.

Other corporations prefer to support a specific cause that is in line with their values.

In 1974, Ron Joyce, coordinator of the Tim Hortons chain, created a foundation to honour Tim Horton's love for children and his desire to help those less fortunate. The foundation provides a fun-filled camp environment that is open all year long for thousands of children from communities that have Tim Hortons coffee shops. In 2009, approximately 14,000 children from economically disadvantaged homes benefited from this program.

I would also like to highlight the contribution of institutions like hospitals and schools. They are increasingly adopting volunteer programs, in addition to their existing financial support and fundraising campaigns. Examples of this can be found at the McGill University Health Centre where approximately 1,700 volunteers donate their time, their compassion and their experience to 90 volunteer programs.

Another example is the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario where students from high school and university, along with elderly people and professionals, volunteer thousands of hours of their time and share their expertise.

Since childhood, our children are made aware of the importance of self-sacrifice and the impact this can have on their community. Many schools promote social and community involvement by establishing volunteer programs, such as the program established by the International Baccalaureate, a non-profit educational foundation.

In Canada, 297 private and public schools have adopted this program which requires that students complete a certain number of hours of community service in order to receive their diploma. Other schools have built their own programs, such as the volunteer program of the Académie Parhélie in the Yukon which encourages students to volunteer their time to help others.

In Ontario, all high schools across the province, which includes approximately 700,000 students, need to complete 40 hours of community service to get their high school diploma. This requirement has been in place since 1999. In addition, many students do more hours than they are required and continue to volunteer throughout their lives or return to volunteering once they are adults.

Fostering engagement from childhood raises children's' awareness of social involvement, boosts their talents, their sense of organization and increases self-esteem. Although the majority of donors and volunteers prefer to be anonymous and have it kept confidential, the extent of their contributions is recognized in many ways.

One of the ways donors and volunteers are recognized is through National Philanthropy Day on November 15. This day, held the very first time in 1986, is important to many organizations that use this day to celebrate and highlight the contributions of their many generous volunteers and donors.

National Philanthropy Day provides an opportunity for organizations to celebrate their accomplishments, to identify their future needs and to raise awareness within their communities.

I believe that the adoption of a National Philanthropy Day should, first and foremost, encourage Canadians to give of their time and their talents to benefit the causes that are nearest and dearest to them, thus strengthening their communities.

Therefore, as the member for Miramichi, New Brunswick, where people are constantly so willing to help and to volunteer their time for the good of our community, I am happy to support Bill S-203, an act to set aside November 15 of each year as national philanthropy day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to again raise in the House the issue that I addressed back in June in question period when I put some questions to the Minister of Justice about a Statistics Canada report that had just been released which showed that hate crimes in Canada were up by 35% between 2007 and 2008. I will just go over what the report indicated at that time.

Fifty-five per cent of those hate crime incidents were based on race or ethnicity, with folks from the black community and the South Asian community being the victims of those crimes most often. Twenty-eight per cent were based in religion, and the members of the Jewish community were most prominently affected in that case. Sixteen per cent were hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

Of all of the hate crimes, those based on sexual orientation were by far the most violent. Seventy-five per cent of hate crimes based on sexual orientation that Statistics Canada looked at in that survey were violent crimes, as compared to 38% of hate crimes based on race being violent and 25% of those based on religion being violent.

It was a very serious situation that was being described. We know that many hate crimes also go unreported in Canada, unfortunately, because of the extra issues involved. There may be a violent assault but there is also this extra component of someone being targeted because of his or her membership in a minority group or in a minority, and the extra problems that causes and the extra emotional content of that kind of attack.

It is troubling to see these increases, troubling to see the level of violence associated with them and it is something that we need to be addressing in our society as a whole.

The first question I put back in June to the minister was what the government was planning to do to increase the confidence of victims of hate crimes in the police and in the criminal justice system so that the reporting of these crimes might be increased. The minister, in his response, said something about the Canadian Human Rights Commission looking into this issue and then went on to talk about other issues.

I believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission is looking at the whole question of hate speech but it is a different issue than the kind of extra component of a criminal act, especially for assault where there is someone being targeted because of his or her membership in a minority organization.

The second question was around specifically the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual community and the fact that the violence of those hate-based crimes was rising faster. I asked what the government might do to address that, what education programs might be in the works and what data there was. We know that hate crimes data, especially related to the GLBTT community, is very inconsistent and that the statistics are very inconsistent across the country. Therefore, I was asking what the government would do to address those issues. The minister did not address that question at all. In fact, he went off on a completely different tangent on something else.

The issue is still there. What is the government prepared to do to address the violent hate crimes that face the GLBTT community in Canada? What is it prepared to do in terms of ensuring that there is consistency in how our police report and record hate crimes? Those questions still need to be answered.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada and elsewhere in the world, hate crimes are viewed as a serious social problem. It is felt that these crimes are different from other ones, because they can have a profound impact not only on victims, but also on the respective communities and on society.

The Criminal Code includes four offences that are considered to be hate crimes: advocating genocide, inciting public hatred, wilfully promoting hatred and mischief against religious property. Other offences, such as assault or threats, can also be considered hate crimes if it is determined that they were triggered by prejudice against an identifiable group. Hate crimes can target race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor. The sentencing provisions provide heavier sentences for these types of offences.

The most recent accurate data available in Canada were collected through a project led by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. These data were recently published in a report entitled “Police-reported hate Crime in Canada, 2008”. According to this report, Canadian police services identified 1,036 hate-motivated crimes, up from 765 in 2007. This represents a 35% increase in the number of such offences. Part of the increase may be due to heightened public awareness of these types of incidents as well as improved reporting practices by police.

The report also points out that the vast majority of police-reported hate crimes resulted from one of three primary motivations: race or ethnicity, 55%; religion, 26%; and sexual orientation, 16%.

Increases were reported in 2008 for all three types of motivation. It is very surprising to note that the largest increase was reported for hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation, which more than doubled from 2007 to 2008.

Hate crimes motivated by religion increased by 53%, while those motivated by race or ethnicity increased by a lesser amount, that is 15%.

There were 205 hate crimes against Blacks in 2008, accounting for almost 4 in 10 racially-motivated incidents. This number was 30% higher than in 2007 but still lower than the number reported in 2006.

Anti-Semitic hate crimes accounted for nearly two-thirds of religiously-motivated incidents in 2008. Police reported 165 hate crimes against the Jewish faith, an increase of 42% from 2007.

Together, about 4 in 10 hate crimes in 2008 were reported by police in Toronto and Vancouver. After accounting for population differences, rates were higher in the smaller census metropolitan areas of London, Guelph, Kingston and Brantford followed by the larger areas of Vancouver, Hamilton and Kitchener.

About 6 in 10 persons accused of hate crime in 2008 were youth and young adults aged 12 to 22 years, higher than the proportion accused of crime in general. The number of persons accused of hate crime peaked among 17 and 18 year-olds.

We are aware of the serious impact of crimes against lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the majority of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation are violent.

Detailed information—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate hearing from the parliamentary secretary the statistics and the analysis, it would be nice to know what the government was prepared to do. Maybe he could get to that.

There are a number of things we could be doing. We should ensure that we collect the right statistics and that we have consistency so that all of our police forces are doing the same kind of reporting with the same understanding. If we have good statistics, we can understand what is going on and make good policy and determine the effectiveness of policy.

We also have to make sure that the police, prosecutors, and judges understand the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code and understand its usefulness in dealing with the whole question of hate crimes. This is a sentencing tool that is available to them in the criminal justice system and can be used effectively.

We need to make the sentencing provisions more explicit, especially around transgender and transsexual Canadians so that they are explicitly included in this law and have this recourse.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my speech. As we have already mentioned, the data collected by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics have shown that the vast majority of police-reported hate crimes were motivated by three main factors: race or ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation. It is extremely disturbing that the largest increase was among hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation, which more than doubled from 2007 to 2008.

We are very aware of the extremely serious consequences of crimes against homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals. With respect to the community's ability to take steps against hate crimes, it should be noted that resources are available from the Department of Justice through its justice partnership and innovation program. The Department of Justice website provides the following funding information on its programs branch page:

Access to Justice for Marginalized Populations

The Department of Justice is committed to supporting the Minister of Justice in working to ensure that Canada is a just and law-abiding society with an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 16, the Liberals presented pictures which showed to what extent the Minister of Industry and member for Parry Sound—Muskoka used the G8 infrastructure fund to shamelessly favour his riding. Indeed, the minister took money from that fund for his own slush fund and used it for his riding. The photos showed 10 projects for which the money had been used, including: a $2 million project to upgrade streets and improve parks in Port Severn, which is located 135 kilometres from the G8; a $500,000 project to improve a park in Bracebridge, which is about 50 kilometres from where the meeting took place; and a $730,000 project to upgrade and repair a road in Kearney, 42 kilometres from the summit.

These bridge and road upgrades were not even done, even though they were announced with great pump the previous year, in press releases.

Other ridings have much more urgent needs than the minister's riding, and they want to have access to government programs. I am thinking in particular of all the regions that are dependent on the forestry and manufacturing industries.

The minister funnelled into his own riding the largest amount given to northern Ontario ridings for infrastructure projects. His riding received a total of $35.8 million from the building Canada fund, the recreational infrastructure Canada initiative, and the infrastructure stimulus fund. The minister also funnelled the largest amount of money given under the community adjustment fund to northern Ontario ridings. This $7.5 million is more than twice the average amount of $3.1 million given to northern Ontario ridings. As the Minister of Industry and member of Parry Sound—Muskoka, he is responsible for most of these programs. This is shameful and scandalous.

Even after the G8 summit, patronage money continued to flow into the riding of the Minister of Industry. Pictures taken after the G8 prove that Huntsville, which is located in his riding, benefited from money disguised as infrastructure money that was supposedly provided for the G8 summit. The Prime Minister must explain to Canadians why these so-called infrastructure projects were still not completed when the summit took place.

The Liberal Party leader said Canadians had had enough of the Conservatives’ favouritism and the Prime Minister’s poor budget management. The Conservative Prime Minister even approved of the wasting of billions of dollars. But that is not all. The Conservatives want to give billions of dollars in tax cuts to big, profitable corporations, even though the corporate tax rate in Canada is already one of the lowest in the G7.

The Conservatives’ priorities are not aligned with the needs of Canadian families, which are having trouble making ends meet. The Conservatives have three basic priorities: prisons, fighter aircraft, and a $20 billion gift for big corporations in the form of tax cuts.

When will the Minister of Industry really start being accountable to the Canadian people?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to respond to that question.

The Government of Canada has been clear all along that its investments in projects through the G8 legacy fund were intended to showcase the communities in the region and to provide a legacy to the area for hosting the G8 summit.

The town of Huntsville received funding to expand and rehabilitate its community centre in order that the facility could be used as the G8 administrative centre. The Muskoka Tourism Visitor Information Centre was also rehabilitated.

Over 10,000 reporters attended this event, not 10,000 reporters from Ottawa, not 10,000 reporters from Canada, nor even from North America, but 10,000 reporters from around the world. We were showcasing Canada to the world at this particular event and it was important that the world see Canada in its best light. We believe we accomplished that.

We rehabilitated and renovated some of those facilities so that tourists in particular would be more easily informed of all that the Muskoka region has to offer visitors.

Additional projects were also undertaken throughout the region, including improvements to parks and public spaces, in order to better showcase one of the most beautiful places in all of Canada, with the exception of course of my own beautiful riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca in northern Alberta.

As my colleague said before and I will say again, the Allister Johnston Bridge previously referred to by the member is not a project being funded through the G8 legacy fund. The span of the street that was rehabilitated through this Government of Canada investment began at the base of the bridge and spanned the length of the main street.

The G8 summit brought together in Canada people from the world's leading economic powers: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This was the first visit to the region for many of the delegates. The G8 legacy fund's investments helped to showcase the local area to delegates and invested significantly in the region's tourism industry.

The member suggested that there was favouritism. I do not buy that at all. He is mistaken. Every day when I am in this place and away from my home in northern Alberta I travel across the Alexandra Bridge. For the past year it has been undergoing major renovations paid for by the federal government's infrastructure fund. On one side of the bridge is a Liberal riding, that member's riding, and on the other side of the bridge is another Liberal member's riding. If there is favouritism, I would suggest that the member should speak up and tell the facts to the Canadian people. The facts are that we have been fair, we have been just, and we have treated all Canadians equally because we are interested in all Canadians' quality of life.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the example my colleague just gave does not hold water because the Alexandra bridge he talked about belongs to the Government of Canada. What is being done on the bridge is strictly maintenance. That cannot be compared to the favouritism seen elsewhere.

Even though the G8 and G20 summits are important, the ones held in Canada last June left a bitter taste in the mouth. They seem to have been improvised and poorly planned and were terribly expensive. The Prime Minister actually missed a golden opportunity for Canada to make its mark in the world.

In addition to wasting money, Canada failed to benefit from these summits. For the first time in the history of the UN, Canada could not even win a sit on the Security Council.

Canadians did not ask the Conservatives to run up a budget deficit of $54 billion or more, spend $16 billion on possibly unnecessary fighter aircraft without a call for tenders, and waste $1 billion on a meeting of the G8 and G20 that lasted 72 hours.

How much of this mess—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The honourable parliamentary secretary.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I am sorry, but I still do not buy it.

Today we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We heard from people in Quebec who deal with municipalities. They are ecstatic about the amount of infrastructure in which this government has invested throughout Canada. One billion dollars in stimulus money in Quebec alone has helped it put in new water pipes, new sewer systems, new roads and bridges.

I thank the member for supporting us in that. I wish the Bloc and the NDP had supported Canada's economic action plan. Fortunately, this Conservative government continues to make good investments across this country. We are going past political lines. We are getting the best job done for Canadians and their quality of life.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:36 p.m.)