House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 307 under private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
I declare the motion lost.
It being 6:27 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House this evening to speak in favour of Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day. It is my privilege to speak on it in this Parliament.
This bill has come before this House several times over the last number of sessions. As a matter of fact, in the last Parliament I had the privilege of having carriage of this bill in this House. Unfortunately, as a result of the election we were not able to see that passed. Today we have an opportunity to try yet again to see that this bill finally passes.
National Philanthropy Day has been around for some time. As a matter of fact, it was first declared in 1986. Since this first declaration of National Philanthropy Day, organizations across this country and North America have adopted National Philanthropy Day. Many organizations as well as provinces and organizations respect National Philanthropy Day, not only here in Canada but also in the United States as well.
In 2009, this government under the leadership of our Prime Minister undertook to formalize National Philanthropy Day by declaring that it would be on November 15 in Canada. As I said, until now it hasn't been formalized in legislation, and that is what we are trying to do today.
Philanthropy is not an empty concept to Canadians. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the necessity of those who give of their time, money, resources and expertise to assist other Canadians. It is something that distinguishes Canadians. We as Canadians believe very much in the responsibility to care for our neighbours.
When we talk about philanthropy, we are not talking about only those people who have their faces etched on some kind of local statue in bronze or granite. We are talking about those people who give of their time each and every day. We are talking about those 84% of Canadians who give some kind of donation to their local charities and organizations.
We are talking about those people who give significant amounts of their time to local organizations, be it the person who volunteers at a local homeless shelter, senior citizens who give of their time at the local Salvation Army, those who coach local soccer or football, or teachers who give a little extra time at the end of the school day to make sure children have access to a literacy program or something of that nature. Today we are speaking about those people who make our communities better, those who give a little to make sure our communities are better off.
As I said, 84% of Canadians give money to local organizations, and that translates into 23 million Canadians who give to charitable organizations. When we talk about charitable organizations, it is interesting to note that there are over 80,000 organizations across this country that do charitable work. If we consider the contributions made to those organizations, some $10 billion is given on an annual basis. It is a remarkable amount. If one divides that by every Canadian, it is over $400 for every man, woman and child to these organizations.
I spoke about the time that is given to different organizations. We all benefit from having these organizations in our communities. It is estimated that in 2010, more than 13.3 million Canadians, or 47% of the population, volunteered their time to a local group or organization that makes our country a better place. That translates into 2.1 billion hours of volunteer time that is given by Canadians. It is some 1.1 million full-time jobs.
It is a remarkable feat. We as Canadians know we could never repay the efforts. We could never come up with the amount of cash that would be necessary to replace those contributions that Canadians make through their volunteer hours.
Today we are talking about declaring a day to celebrate those folks. It is in no way, shape or form going to make up for the contributions that these people give to Canada on an annual basis, but that is not what we are seeking to do. We know that people who give their time and their money have no expectation of repayment. They do it because they want to build a better community, better and stronger provinces, and a better and stronger country. For that we, as Canadians and parliamentarians, can be proud.
In 2011, our Prime Minister instituted an additional recognition of volunteerism here in Canada with the creation of the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards. These are some of the most important awards given at the national level. They recognize those people who volunteer their time, who build our communities into better places. They are nominated by people who live in their communities.
This is also a special year. Not only are we celebrating the second year that the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards will be delivered to Canadians, but we are also celebrating Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee. We will recognize our monarch's 60 years of service by seeing the creation of the Diamond Jubilee Award. It will be given to Canadians across this country who have contributed to their communities.
Those members of Parliament who are still seeking nominations, and I know in my office we are still seeking nominations, for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Award would all appreciate me letting Canadians know. It is important across party lines that we recognize those people who have built stronger and more vibrant communities. Through this award we will see the celebration of those people who have contributed so much. Again this year as Canadians from coast to coast, we will celebrate another way that we can recognize volunteers and those who contribute to our communities.
This is also a special year because we are celebrating the War of 1812. The question could be asked, what does that have to do with National Philanthropy Day and volunteerism. It really hearkens back to the creation of this nation and the role that volunteers played. Those who volunteered their service during the War of 1812 provided front line service on a voluntary basis. They were not paid for their militia service. They volunteered willingly, knowing that they were putting their lives on the line and believing in what would be Canada.
As we hearken back to that first step in creating this great country, or one of the most important things in establishing this country, we recognize that volunteerism played such an integral role even at that point in time.
I had the opportunity two weeks ago to be in Muskeg Lake, Saskatchewan. We were also in the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. In these communities we heard of people who fought in the War of 1812, first nations people who gave willingly, laying their lives on the line so that we might have this country of Canada. We are thankful for the service that those people gave to Canada, but also for the legacy for the communities.
We heard stories of inspiration, how the French, English and first nations came together to fight a common battle to see Canada created and protected. That legacy has continued even to this day. People continue to volunteer in respect of services. It is good for us to hearken back as we consider philanthropy and some of its origins here in Canada.
Communities across this country recognize the importance of philanthropy. In my own riding of Peace River, in the city of Grande Prairie and throughout the northern portions of my riding, we would not be as strong a community as we are today if it had not been for those people who give back.
We know there are business leaders within our community who have contributed significantly over the years to build a stronger community through their financial contributions to local and national charities. I can think of a number of different families. There are the Evaskevich, Henry Hamm, and Abe Neufeld families. I think of Peter Teichroeb and the Bowes family. I think of the Longmate and Diederich families who have contributed so significantly through their financial contributions to our communities. I also think of those people who have given their time. I can speak of Arta Juneau and a whole host of others who have given so significantly.
I am running out of time. I could continue for some time talking about the volunteer contributions of those in my community, but I should leave it there. We should all remember that in each one of our communities there are those people who give of their time and money. They truly are philanthropists.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Madam Speaker, philanthropy is an important matter. For the next 10 minutes, I will have the opportunity to speak about the contribution of philanthropy in the past, present and especially the future.
This is a very important issue for me because I was raised by a grandmother who was extremely committed and devoted everything—her knowledge, time and money—to her community. Today, I have the great pleasure of standing here, among my colleagues, to discuss the spirit of philanthropy.
I hope that everyone agrees to share my philosophy of life and to make our country, and also humanity, their top priority. Each one of us should try to improve the lot of our fellow human beings in many ways, without thought of personal gain. In fact, philanthropy should be a way of life, and it should be based on direct participation. Philanthropy can be an act of giving or an act of love for humanity. In other words, philanthropy is the act of giving of oneself by making a donation of money or time. We are currently projecting that philanthropy is moving in a direction where knowledge, expertise and cultural talent are increasingly vital.
Philanthropy in Canada today is changing faster than ever. More people are engaging in it and are using new media and new technologies to tackle old problems with new strategies. They have new opportunities. We have to rethink our approaches to funding and social investment. Our actions, our practices, our programs and our perspectives are all being constantly challenged. Philanthropy in the future has to present new outlooks and new horizons.
According to statistics on philanthropy in Canada, on the people who volunteer their time and knowledge, Canada’s non-profit and voluntary sector is the second largest in the world. That of the Netherlands is the largest in the world and that of the United States is the fifth largest. There are an estimated 160,000 non-profits and charities in Canada, over half—54%—of which are run entirely by volunteers. Some 2 million people are employed by these organizations, or 11.1% of the economically active population. The sector accounts for $79.1 billion or 7.8% of the GDP, which is larger than the automotive or manufacturing industries. Smaller provinces have a higher number of these organizations relative to their populations. The top 1% of these organizations command 60% of all revenues in the sector.
Let us look at some past crises in Quebec.
In January 1998, an ice storm hit Quebec. Thousands of homes were without light or heat for over a month. The economy and the environment suffered from this meteorological crisis and the people living in the affected regions still have bad memories of that time. Some $11 million in donations were collected during the ice storm. That is a lot. Where was the government? That is the question. It is always there after the fact and after a considerable amount of time. Yet, the people had mobilized once again. They have a sense of philanthropy. The organizations are always there for their communities and they always act quickly.
In 1996, the Saguenay region was hit hard by flooding. Centraide, the United Way, quickly came to the assistance of community organizations affected by the disaster. Thanks to the generosity of United Way donors across Quebec and Canada, the organization also saw a considerable increase in the number of new applications to the funding allocation committee. Twenty-seven million dollars was raised during the 1996 Saguenay floods. Once again, where was the government? It took an inordinately long time to respond, and once again, volunteers and community organizations were the ones who mobilized, bringing their philanthropic spirit, as well as their knowledge and expertise, to help the people of Saguenay.
Montérégie also experienced flooding recently, when the Lake Champlain basin and the Richelieu River flooded. In 2011, flooding of the Lake Champlain basin caused water levels to rise substantially between late April and the end of June, right after the flooding of the Richelieu River in Canada and Lake Champlain into the United States. On the Quebec side, the floods affected approximately 3,000 residences in Montérégie. Here is yet another example of philanthropy: the Syndicat des cols bleus regroupés de Montréal mobilized, and over 800 blue collar volunteers came to the assistance of the flood victims. Once again, people came together spontaneously. Where were the provincial and federal governments? Their response time was appalling. The people were suffering, but once again, the philanthropic spirit brought people and organizations together to help.
Even the cultural community mobilized. From June 7 to 13, 2011, comedians from the region joined forces to help the victims of the Richelieu River floods. The youth of the Jeune Chambre de commerce du Haut-Richelieu organized this wonderful initiative in order to raise money as quickly as possible in order to help the flood victims. This is just one more example of what philanthropy means.
The purpose of my speech is clear. I want to talk about the current status of philanthropy. As a young, newly elected MP, I look at how things work in government right now, and I see the trust between the people and the government. Voter turnout is declining, people are demonstrating more and more, and it seems that people are becoming more aware of the situation. Unfortunately, that is not because of any decisions the government is making. Instead, it is because of citizen participation and the fact that new media have enabled them to create a social network. It is easier for them to communicate, get organized and talk about various problems. Most importantly, it is easier for them to find solutions. Confidence in organizations, philanthropy, volunteers and ordinary citizens is growing.
We need to be humble as we consider the future of philanthropy and figure out where we want to be. We have to ask a lot of questions that deserve answers. It does not make sense for a government to ignore the people and not connect with them when organizations, for their part, regularly reach out. They know how to use the tools available to them. They have practically no money, but they still achieve real results quickly. Does it make sense that people are giving more and more money to organizations but are becoming less and less willing to give money to the government? I think so.
A self-respecting government that acts in accordance with its beliefs should listen to the people and connect with those who already play an active role.
I am greatly concerned about the approach taken by this government in the current budget. It is becoming decentralized and disorganized. The Conservatives are doing away with agencies that, for generations, have provided important information and made important contributions to our society. The partnership with these agencies made it possible for the government to adapt, to connect with Canadians and to always be aware of their needs, which is key. But now, the government is targeting these agencies and doing away with them rather than going to see them and telling them that perhaps their information is not up to date and that they should adapt. It is a partnership, a listening relationship. The government could take stock of the situation, but it does not.
I sincerely believe that the Conservatives are really starting to fear philanthropy, despite the fact that they claim to be philanthropists. They have begun selecting and sequestering agencies by sidelining them and cutting their funding. Many agencies were not taking a stand before, but they are doing so now. They are coming to tell us that something is not working. Their funding has been cut without notice on flimsy pretexts. Yet, these agencies provide services to people at the national and international level and they get results.
The idea I am trying to convey is that there are huge issues that need to be raised here in the House and that Canadians need to consider. Philanthropy Day is essential but it is only a start. We must go farther than that. We must have a vision. We must implement concrete measures. We may even need to go so far as to create a new department that will have a direct link with all the agencies and deal with the issue of philanthropy, not just in Canada, but globally. We need to become a leader and show that we can have an ongoing connection with all citizens in all circumstances.
Today, I hope that my grandmother, who is no longer with us but who was a great philanthropist, is listening to me and that she is very proud of the message that I have presented to the House today.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few minutes to discuss Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.
I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West, the Liberal sponsor of the bill in this House, and himself a supporter of non-profits. He does a lot of work to raise the profile and effectiveness of the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance, among other non-profits and charitable organizations.
Also, I would like to mention that Bill S-201 was sponsored in the other place by Liberal Senator Terry Mercer, who throughout his esteemed career has been a tireless advocate for philanthropy and fundraising. He has made a number of attempts to bring this initiative forward in legislation since 2004. I am honoured to assist in the bill's passage through the House. I am optimistic all parties and all members will be showing their support.
This bill designates November 15 in each and every year as National Philanthropy Day. The purpose of the bill is to increase public awareness of National Philanthropy Day as a time to thank those who give throughout the year and to focus public attention on major accomplishments made possible through philanthropic contributions. Key local individuals and corporations would be honoured for their philanthropic endeavours. Local fundraisers and volunteers would be recognized and thanked for their time, talent and dedication.
We are talking about almost half of Canadians, because many people volunteer in their communities. However, over the past 20 years, the percentage of Canadians who make charitable donations has been steadily decreasing and the average donor age has been rising. This is why it is important to raise awareness of this issue. By having a National Philanthropy Day, we shine a light on the importance of giving to charitable organizations, volunteering for them and acting in the public interest. It also reminds people that every dollar and every hour of volunteer time counts.
National Philanthropy Day is about encouraging schools, community groups and individuals to become more aware of the impact of philanthropy and to get involved. It is about encouraging young people to get involved, too. As I said, the average age of donors and volunteers is rising. It celebrates the endless daily contributions that individuals and organizations make to countless causes and missions in Canada and beyond.
This year there were more than 100 National Philanthropy Day events and activities across North America. Over 50,000 people participated. Sixteen Canadian events honoured philanthropists and volunteers in most major Canadian cities. This initiative would add strength to the recognition that is already happening.
On the worrisome side, Canadian giving has dropped for the last three years to about $7.8 billion, which is down from a high of $8.5 billion in 2006, according to Statistics Canada. Even more significant, the percentage of Canadians claiming a charitable deduction dropped from 24% to 23%. We are seeing an erosion of philanthropy, which is worrisome.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Peace River speak about his pride in philanthropists and support for the volunteer sector.
I must say that I believe that the actions of the Conservative government, which is attacking non-governmental organizations, are contrary to the thrust of this bill. I would like to put a question to the Conservative member who is proud of the volunteers in his community.
Is the hon. member proud that Conservative ministers are calling philanthropic organizations names? Is he proud that organizations that contribute to sectors right across the spectrum of public interest are being falsely accused of illegal activities like money laundering? Is he proud of the intimidation of the non-profit and charitable sector that is happening through magnification—
National Philanthropy Day ActPrivate Members' Business
An hon. member
It's about National Philanthropy Day. Be nice.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Order. Apologies to the hon. member. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra may continue.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River is essentially attacking my speech.
I ask whether the hon. member is proud of intimidation through auditing. The government has cut funding for important organizations that do volunteer and charitable work, but it was able to find $8 million to give to the Canada Revenue Agency for the specific and sole purpose of auditing non-profit groups to intimidate them. Is the hon. member proud of that? Is the hon. member proud of the de-funding of organizations that dare to speak out and say something the government does not like? Is he proud that we are stifling debate and democracy in this country?
I hope he is not. I hope the support for philanthropy and philanthropic organizations shown by Conservative members will cause them to rethink the systematic policies of intimidating non-profit groups that speak out.
Democracy is about speaking out. It is about dissenting. It is about organizations telling a government of whatever stripe when the organization believes the government is on the wrong track or is missing an opportunity to improve people's lives. That is the function of civil society. That is the function of many of non-profit and philanthropic groups. They need to be free to be part of this country's public policy debate.
The charitable sector in Canada is enormous, with more than $100 billion in annual revenues. One must think about the contributions it is making to the public good. The charitable sector is approximately equal in size to the economy of British Columbia. Furthermore, in Canada it is made up of more than 160,000 organizations, over 1.2 million paid staff, which is a lot of jobs, and 6.5 million volunteers.
What is the impact on the volunteers for these groups and organizations of having a government that attacks the organizations for which they work and to which they donate? It is really difficult for Canadians who clearly want to contribute to the public good, but who have a government that attacks their organization.
Canadians are recognized around the world for their generosity and compassion. I hope we can maintain that profile and recognition at a time when the Conservative government is de-funding organizations, some of which have international reach and help people who are the poorest of the poor in other countries.
Many of these charitable organizations work in my constituency of Vancouver Quadra. It has a wide variety of charitable initiatives and people who contribute to those efforts, from affordable housing to protecting women in situations of family violence, to philanthropy in terms of arts, dance, opera, theatre. The Kitsilano Showboat is a wonderful example of a philanthropic non-profit organization that enriches the lives of people throughout Vancouver Quadra.
We continue to be inspired by the dedication of volunteers who give freely of their time to improve the lives of others.
Through Senator Mercer's persistence, dedication and hard work, and through the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West, I hope this bill will be passed by my colleagues in the House, as it has passed through the other place on several occasions before.
Last, I would hope that members on the Conservative benches would really think about the importance of philanthropy, as declared through National Philanthropy Day, and look to their ministers' and government's actions in de-funding, in muzzling, and in stifling dissent. Such actions essentially send a message to those in the philanthropic and volunteer sector that they may only speak in support of the government's actions or else they will be punished. What will that do to our democracy? It is completely unacceptable and has to stop.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day. I believe this bill is essential to recognizing the importance of the philosophy of humanism and the contribution of philanthropists to society.
National Philanthropy Day was celebrated for the first time on November 15, 1986. Canada was the first country to formally recognize this day in 2009.
Unfortunately, all bills to establish a permanent day have died on the order paper. A number of my colleagues must be wondering why there has not been unanimity on this matter, and this is something that has puzzled me as well.
Canadians are well known for their philanthropy. A number of studies by major Canadian financial institutions have shown that Canada has very generous philanthropists. These people invest in Canada and other parts of the world and, contrary to popular wisdom, they are not all members of Canada's wealthy elite.
These philanthropists include many ordinary Canadians who firmly believe they can change their communities through their contributions. Almost 70% of Canadians gave to charity in the past 12 months. Average donations total $487 a year.
After all, it is only natural for Canadians to want to try and improve life for their fellow citizens, regardless of their means. Humanism is at the heart of the priorities of many Canadians for whom the suffering of others is unbearable. It is not necessary to make a financial donation to be considered a philanthropist.
Philanthropy can also be expressed by showing compassion and doing something tangible to change things. Just look at volunteers. They make us realize that being philanthropic is a matter of passion, altruism and self-giving.
I want to share with my colleagues a number of philanthropic acts. Canadian history is filled with memorable examples. Hon. members can judge the generosity and contributions of these prominent philanthropists for themselves. These remarkable people are responsible for considerable changes in Canadian society because they had the vision and the will to make those changes. You do not need to be wealthy to bring about change. Everyone can be socially responsible.
My first example, Elizabeth McMaster, was one of those people. Troubled by the high death rates of children, in 1875, she founded Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. What is today renowned throughout the world as a leading pediatric health centre was created because a group of women decided to rent a house equipped with only six cots at a cost of $320.
Many of us are probably aware of the important contribution made by Sir Frederick Grant Banting to medicine. In 1922, this Canadian scientist discovered insulin. With no access to research grants at that time, Banting sold his own car to finance his work. In order to ensure that insulin would be affordable to all who needed it, he sold the rights to insulin for the symbolic sum of $1, when he could have made a fortune. Clearly, his motivation was not the same as that of today's pharmaceutical giants.
Terry Fox's 1980 Marathon of Hope stands out as one of Canada's best philanthropic achievements. To date, the Marathon of Hope has raised over $400 million worldwide for cancer research.
These are just a few of the many examples of Canadians' philanthropic inclination throughout history. These men and women sought to improve the lives of others and showed compassion toward those in need.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Rick Hansen, who wheeled his way through 34 countries in 26 months. A modest man, he inspired an entire nation to believe that anything is possible, much like the late Jack Layton did.
I hope that these examples of great Canadian philanthropists have inspired my colleagues to reflect on the current state of philanthropy in Canada and its development over the years.
It is clear that philanthropy is important, particularly in today's society. Currently, we are seeing growing inequality between rich and poor in Canada. Studies of rich countries have shown that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the worse off everyone is. Conversely, a smaller gap has a positive impact on everyone.
What are those positive effects? Greater social mobility, longer life expectancy and better academic achievement, not to mention lower rates of obesity, homicide and incarceration, to name but a few.
Those are all excellent philanthropic causes. I feel the need to point out that greater restrictions on employment insurance eligibility, cuts to social programs and lower taxes have not resulted in better wealth redistribution.
In such a context, philanthropy takes on a whole new importance because it fills a void where government help is insufficient or completely non-existent. Philanthropy thus helps to find solutions to the social problems of our time and mitigate the harmful effects of cuts in services.
In Canada, philanthropy is often synonymous with innovation. It mobilizes experts in every sector. In terms of environmental protection, we need only think of people such as David Suzuki or Steven Guilbeault. They have devoted their lives to environmentalism for the good of humankind. No one can question their influence and credibility in this field throughout Canada and the entire world. Their role is even more important today when we consider the negligence of this government, which has a permanently withdrawn from the Kyoto accord. I feel reassured knowing that determined people continue to work for our collective interest when it comes to the environment.
Let us also recognize the contribution of Canada's charitable and non-profit sector, which is made up of close to 161,000 agencies and generates billions and billions of dollars a year. Can you imagine the important contribution this makes to our GDP? It is a real economic force in Canada. Would you like to know where Canada stands in this area as compared to other countries? Canada has the second largest charitable and non-profit sector in the world. That is very impressive.
Canadians are contributing financially to this sector in record numbers and many give their time to these organizations. Of course, this sector is quite diverse and that is its strength. Whether we are talking about education, health, social services, housing, environmental protection, the arts, culture or other sectors, they all have a crucial role to play in our society.
I want to reiterate the need to give this day permanent status. That is what the key philanthropic organizations in the country want and for good reason.
This country was built on the generosity of its people. It is our duty to encourage Canadians to want to change things in their communities for everyone's well-being.
Canadians must actively participate in their communities in order to keep their communities thriving. We have to think about the future of philanthropy in Canada in a way that gives the country a more human face. We have to explore the possibilities before us and find the best solutions for the problems facing our communities.
I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort, as this should be a non-partisan issue. Let us recognize this day and become a role model for other countries.
In closing, I would just like to say that I am very involved in my community. That is probably why it was so easy for me during the election campaign because people already knew me. Philanthropy opens up some unimaginable doors for us and that is truly great.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.
I rise here today in part because I know that the people of Pontiac support this bill, and I am merely their humble representative. However, I also strongly believe in the importance of philanthropy.
The main idea behind this bill is to create a permanent philanthropy day by declaring November 15 National Philanthropy Day. This is a laudable goal.
I would argue that it is about time that we recognized philanthropists and philanthropy in this manner. As an elected official, and no doubt like many of my colleagues here in the House, I have had the opportunity and the privilege of attending many philanthropic events in my riding. I am always impressed by how generous the people of Pontiac are with both their time and money. My riding boasts many philanthropic associations, including Lions Clubs, Optimist Clubs, Knights of Columbus, the Masons, religious philanthropic groups, and I could go on.
I am always impressed by the great amount of work these associations do to help people on the margins. They are the ones who provide services and funds when families are really in need. I am also happy to live in a country with such a long-standing philanthropic tradition. Like many Canadians, I was very impressed by how willing my fellow citizens were to help after the earthquake in Haiti. I am pleased to note that, according to a BMO survey on philanthropy, Canadians are still making generous donations despite the difficult situation caused by recent events. For example, some 70% of Canadians donated to charity in the past 12 months. Canadians gave an average of $487 to charities over the past year, and plan to give just as much in 2012. Over the past 20 years in Quebec, the Fondation communautaire du Québec has served as an umbrella organization for over 500 funds created by families, individuals and businesses. These people have seen the opportunity to give to causes that matter to them. Through these funds, donors give back over $1.5 million per year to organizations.
This shows how Canadians and Quebeckers take the true meaning of the word “philanthropy” to heart: “phil” means love, and “anthropy” means human beings. This is about loving human beings. To love our fellow human beings is to help them.
National philanthropy day was celebrated for the first time on November 15, 1986, and Canada was the first country to officially recognize the day in 2009. We can be proud of that and of Bill S-201.
Leading philanthropic organizations have expressed strong support for this bill. The submission by the Association of Fundraising Professionals recommended passing the bill. But we must not heap too much praise on ourselves.
Philanthropic associations are also the first to tell us that it is getting harder and harder for them to do their work in society. Today, there are many obstacles to their operations and major obstacles for Canadian donors.
If we are to keep the spirit of giving alive in Canada, it will take more than a special day. A report published by the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy discusses some of the challenges to philanthropy today. For example, approximately 4 in 10 donors said that they did not give more because they did not think their donations would be used efficiently.
To retain these donors and encourage them to give more, perceptions about how charities spend their money and what results they achieve from those expenditures has to be addressed and changed.
There are also particular challenges with regard to age. Many charitable organizations and service clubs have an average age which is much too high to be sustainable. Attracting young people is increasingly difficult. Younger donors may need a special approach as we go forward. More than half of younger donors, and that is donors aged from 15 to 34, according to the same report, do not give more money because they want to save for their future needs or because they prefer to spend money in other ways.
Although it may be difficult to overcome financial barriers, particularly with regard to debt for young people, the participation of the youth in philanthropy by giving their time could be made more fun and more social. There is some evidence to point to the fact that event-based fundraising approaches or cause-related fundraising, both of which deliver a benefit while raising money to the individual, are more successful with the young today.
Encouraging youth participation in activities such as team sports, youth groups and student government may also pay dividends in the future. Canadians who have had these early life experiences have been shown to be more likely to donate later in life.
However, many other barriers exist, including education, employment status, household income, culture, et cetera. It is perhaps not surprising to note, though, that Canadians who are older, better educated and have a higher household income are more likely to give out of a sense of religious or civic obligation. Their sense of feeling like they owe something to the community also seems to be higher.
As generations change, one can rightfully ask whether the spirit of giving will continue. It is also interesting to note that the top two reasons why Canadians make charitable donations are they feel compassion for those in need, that is 94% of donors, or they believe in the cause supported by the organization, which is 91% of donors.
It is also interesting to note that more than half, 53% of top donors and a significant percentage of donors in all demographic categories, said that they did not give more because they did not like the way requests for donations were made to them.
Perhaps more fundamentally, we must understand the challenges charitable organizations face today within a larger socio-economic context. Demand is higher and higher as the population grows, but also many of their challenges can be related directly to the lack of commitment of governments to address poverty, particularly of the most vulnerable in our society, such as women, women who are victims of violence, children and seniors.
The state cannot devolve itself of its social responsibilities. Despite these challenges, I truly support the bill. Any measure which underlines the incredible work done by charities in our country every day can only encourage others to give. These associations are too often on the front lines of social concerns and those organizations and volunteers should be recognized. It is the least we can do as parliamentarians.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Resuming debate. Seeing no one rise, I turn to the hon. member for Halifax West for his right of reply.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in reply because there is not much to reply to in view of the fact that there is so much support for the bill on philanthropy day. I thank members who have spoken today and during the first hour of debate on the bill. It is a good bill. It appears that this is the view of the House because all parties support it.
I thank all members who have spoken to the bill, who expressed their views and who have talked about the importance of philanthropy and the different organizations that do charitable work across the country. There are many and their value to Canada is incalculable.
I look forward to the bill hopefully passing second reading and going on to committee.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Madam Speaker, on February 17, I rose in the House and asked when the government would finally help Toronto families deal with rising inflation and higher gas prices and help them to make ends meet. I asked specifically about when the government would come up with a real jobs plan, a plan that would provide jobs to help support families instead of low-wage, part-time, precarious jobs that many families now depend on.
The government has not created jobs in Toronto. The people of my riding of Scarborough Southwest know and live that reality every single day of the week. There are fewer and fewer good jobs in Toronto and therefore more and more families struggling to make ends meet. When I asked my question to the government, I received a glib, meaningless, puerile response from the Minister of State (Finance).
The unemployment rate now stands at 1.4 million Canadians, and three-quarters of the new jobs created since May 2008, unlike what the government would say, have been part-time. With the cuts coming as a result of the recent federal budget, 102,000 more people may be added to the ranks of the unemployed. This is simply shameful.
However, what is even more shameful is the Minister of Finance's ignorant and haughty attitude toward those who are looking for employment, stating there is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job, according to the minister. Maybe that is why the government is so reluctant to create a job plan that works, because to the Conservatives there are simply no bad jobs.
Part-time work. Good job. Job with no security. Good job. Little to no benefits? That is a good job, too. Unfair wages and terrible conditions? That must be a great job. The government has gone from bad to worse, from being out of touch with the needs of Canadians to outright insulting them.
As New Democrats, we have a practical affordable plan to create good full-time jobs, offering targeted tax credits for new hires, implementing investments to help businesses that create jobs, investing in job creation infrastructure and ensuring that foreign investment keeps good jobs in Canada.
The government has failed once again by making the wrong choices in this Trojan Horse budget bill. I will touch on some of the terrible things we are missing from the budget, one of which includes financing for the RADARSAT Constellation program, which is an excellent program that would help Canada maintain its leading industries in satellites.
The RADARSAT Constellation program would put three satellites in space that would help to monitor the Arctic for sovereignty and safety. It would help to monitor our shorelines, and it would help to monitor icebergs coming down from the caps. There are all kinds of wonderful applications for the RADARSAT Constellation program put on by MDA.
In fact, on top of some of these things the RADARSAT-2 satellite, which is in space right now, has also been contracted out to other countries when they have encountered natural disasters. The U.S. government contracted it to provide monitoring for Hurricane Katrina. MDA was also hired to take pictures to monitor the BP oil spill in the gulf.
The applications for this kind of Canadian technology are absolutely endless. However, the government is dithering and refusing to sign a contract. MDA can actually build the satellites. This is costing us good solid jobs in engineering and construction.
It is absolutely an affront to what is supposed to be an innovation budget. We on this side of the House want to see our leading industries supported by the government, industries like MDA, Bombardier and countless ones that I cannot get into tonight.
This is the third time I have risen in adjournment proceedings to ask questions in this regard, and last week the responses from the parliamentary secretary left more than—
Eve Adams ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to tout our government's great work. What is disappointing is to hear the NDP, day in and day out, talk down Canada's economy with its nonstop negativity and misleading statistics. The NDP members know full well that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7, as noted time and time again by independent organizations like the IMF and OECD. These are independent international bodies.
If the member were more knowledgeable, he would know that Canada has posted the strongest growth in employment in the G7 by far over the past few years. In the past two months alone, Canada has created a whopping 140,000 jobs, the strongest two-month back-to-back monthly gains in employment in over 30 years. What is more, since July 2009 employment has increased by over 750,000 jobs. Of these jobs, nine out of ten positions created since July 2009 are full-time and over 80% of the jobs are in the private sector.
Contrary to what the members of the NDP might believe, investments made through Canada's economic action plan have provided significant support for jobs and growth across our country. It has helped promote economic stability for Canadians during the worst of the global recession. In the GTA, the infrastructure stimulus fund helped to create in my community a brand new college, new ambulance stations, new parks, new roads, new trails, new bicycle paths, a new library and a brand new state-of-the-art downtown core. These are lasting and critical infrastructure improvements for my community and jobs for our neighbours.
Economic action plan 2012 further advances our government's commitment to support job creation by small businesses, through measures such as the investing of $205 million to extend the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year. This credit would be available to approximately 536,000 employers. We would provide an additional $50 million to the youth employment strategy to assist more young people in gaining tangible skills and experience. We would improve labour market opportunities for Canadians with disabilities by investing $30 million in the opportunities fund and creating a panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities, and prompting the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in shipbuilding projects.
We are also committed to introducing targeted common sense changes that are firmly focused on job creation.
To this end, economic action plan 2012 proposes providing $21 million to enhance the content and timeliness of the job and labour market information provided to Canadians searching for employment, investing $74 million to ensure that EI claimants benefit from accepting work and investing $387 million to align the calculation of EI benefit amounts with local labour market conditions.
If the NDP member is looking for more reliable reading material on our government's economic record, he should perhaps look up the following: for the fourth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest; Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the number one place to invest and grow a business; and three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Madam Speaker, I just love it when the government gets up and touts the soundness of our financial and banking systems, because that was done in spite of that party when it was in opposition.
The first time I ran for office was in 2000. We were engaged in a massive fight during that time about deregulation of the banking industry, and the Conservatives were saying we had to go the same route as the Americans because otherwise our banks would fail. However, common sense and cooler heads prevailed. We were lucky that did not happen, because then we would have ended up being in the same mess.
When the recession first hit in 2008, we had non-believers. There were recession deniers on the government side. It took the government almost falling before it even acknowledged that there was a problem, and then the government was behind the ball.
There are some things that have happened, but the member spoke about youth unemployment, and the government has closed the youth employment centres. The member spoke about investment in her community; my community has not seen the same kind of investments. From the attitude that we have seen from the front bench--
Eve Adams Conservative Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Madam Speaker, our Conservative government has served Canadians well by taking appropriate action in uncertain global economic times, and we will continue to do so.
Creating jobs remains a top priority and we are doing it through economic action plan 2012.
Maybe the NDP should listen to what the experts are saying. Listen to what the impartial John Manley, a former Liberal minister of finance and now president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, had to say about economic action plan 2012:
By restraining the growth in public spending, reducing regulatory overlap, improving Canada's immigration system and enhancing support for business-driven research, the government is helping to build a stronger and more competitive Canadian economy.
Budget 2012 builds on our country's reputation for fiscal responsibility while at the same time establishing a more positive environment for private sector investment and growth.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, today I would like to again raise the concerns I expressed last February with regard to the protection of our veterans' privacy.
At that time, I spoke about the now well-known case of Harold Leduc, a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The board conducted a campaign to discredit him by disclosing his confidential medical information on more than one occasion. The main criticism levelled against Mr. Leduc was that he ruled too often in favour of the veterans. It is understandable that, as a result of this horrible story, I would question the true independence of this board.
I asked for an independent investigation into the matter, because he was not the only person whose privacy was breached. There had been a number of horror stories prior to his. The department had promised that this would not happen again and we had been assured that access to confidential information would be better controlled. There was talk of new disciplinary measures, and a privacy action plan was announced with great fanfare. However, nothing improved, because Harold Leduc's privacy was violated after the government's action plan was introduced, which was an indication that the flaws still existed and were probably greater than we had imagined.
This government is not serious about this issue. It is making massive cuts to services, and meanwhile, the chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is using taxpayers' money to take a trip across the Atlantic with the minister's approval.
The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore—a favourite of veterans since he has always been happy to defend their cause for more than 15 years—explained how the ombudsman criticized the chair for not giving veterans the benefit of the doubt. It is truly horrible to see such cases. Veterans really must be given the benefit of the doubt. As the ombudsman noted, it is not done. This is really a problem. However, I have no doubt that the trip taken by the chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board was one trip too many.
Since the Conservatives did not keep their promise to reform the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, or VRAB, the time has come to dismantle it and establish an independent judicial inquiry on the violations of privacy.
The ombudsman's lastest report is very clear in this regard. This government did nothing to reform VRAB and ensure that it was meeting its obligations and showing respect for veterans and their families.
Moreover, veterans have lost confidence in what the government can do for them. From what I have read in La Presse, there are many cases.
There is so much wrong with the veterans board. One article is headed:
There is a high level of distrust, disdain among veterans of Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
There are many, many cases like this. The families are also writing letters to complain about it, and journalists are calling for an investigation. But the government does not hear any of it. It does not see this distrust and it is leaving veterans isolated. This is a very bad choice.
The Conservatives are going to say three things that are false.
They are going to say that services to veterans will be maintained, but that is false. When you cut the budget as they are doing with these massive cuts, obviously services will not be maintained. Obviously, services and benefits for veterans will be reduced.
The Conservatives are going to say that the NDP has voted against all their measures and against the 2012 budget. Yes, we voted against this budget, because it has nothing in it for veterans, and we stand behind our veterans.
The Conservatives are going to say they hold veterans dear. That is not the case. We do hold them dear, because we are proposing to do something for them. We stand behind them and we stand up for them.