Debates of March 19th, 2013

The Criminal Code

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

There are clearly differences between rural and urban areas. All of those differences need to be taken into account when a bill is being introduced. I personally represent a rural area, as do many other members. This difference should always be considered, as should the needs of the people living in rural regions.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

First and foremost, this legislation will make it possible to comply with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse, dated April 13, 2012. Our highest judicial authorities have thus determined that wiretaps in situations of imminent harm can be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms without judicial authority, provided law enforcement is governed by an accountability mechanism.

Section 184.4, which became law in 1993 and allows wiretapping without a warrant, did not meet this requirement. For that reason, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and her colleagues declared it unconstitutional.

In their judgment, they emphasized that in certain circumstances, the interests of individuals may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society. However, the Supreme Court justices deplored the fact that section 184.4 fails to provide a mechanism for accountability, and more particularly, notice to persons whose private communications have been intercepted, and contains no accountability measures to permit oversight of the use of the power.

It is important to note that this judgment gave the government a year in which to comply with their decision, which means three weeks from now. I wish to point out that the NDP has been urging the Conservatives for months to take action in this matter. I have some difficulty in believing that it took the minister’s officials eleven months to produce this bill. I rather tend to believe that, once again, instead of taking the lead, consulting interested parties and gathering suggestions from the opposition, the Conservative government decided to wait until the last minute to introduce its bill.

Be that as it may, we are assured that Bill C-55 meets the requirements of R. v. Tse. We found it necessary that this legislation should comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and respect Canadian legal principles. We also wanted it to address the concerns of Canadians about respect for privacy, and the balance between public safety and individual rights.

Bill C-55 will limit the warrantless interception of private communications to the offences specified in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the practice will be restricted to offences such as high treason, the possession or use of explosives, terrorist activity or corruption. We believe this section will make it possible to meet the requirements of R. v. Tse, to the extent that it provides a more restrictive framework for the application of section 184.4.

This bill will also limit the kinds of person authorized to conduct interceptions of this kind without judicial authority. Only police officers will be able to do so, which again places limits on aspects involving the privacy of Canadians.

Another very important aspect is that Bill C-55 requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province to report on the interception of private communications made under section 184.4. A number of things will henceforth be made public that are not, as matters stand now. These include the number of interceptions made, and the number of persons targeted. We will also be able to obtain information on the offences in respect of which interceptions were made, the methods of interception used and the results of the interceptions.

The NDP supports this aspect, which has been put forward in response to the Supreme Court judgment. We have always argued in favour of healthy privacy practices and we constantly ask the government to be transparent in many respects. Clause 3 of the bill clearly addresses that position.

Lastly, Bill C-55 provides that any person who was the object of an interception shall be given notice in writing within 90 days. This last measure will also respond to the imperatives identified by R. v. Tse. We believe it goes without saying that individuals whose privacy has been affected by the application of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code are fully entitled to be informed of that state of affairs.

However, we are concerned about the procedures that could extend notification periods to up to three years. This is an aspect that will clearly be discussed in committee in order to preclude any judgment that would require parliamentarians to redo their homework.

In light of these aspects, I believe that parliamentarians in the House should pass Bill C-55 at third reading. First of all, this legislative framework addresses the loopholes identified by the Supreme Court judgment. As the notice issued by the highest judicial authority in the land will expire in three weeks, it is also essential that we move forward quickly with this updating of Canada's Criminal Code. Bill C-55 also strikes a fair balance between security imperatives and respect for privacy.

Lastly, the proposed amendments were supported in committee by several representatives, including the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. However, the Conservatives' obligation to move forward with Bill C-55 must send a clear message, particularly after Bill C-30 on the interception of electronic communications was withdrawn.

The security of Canadians is essential, but the right to privacy is also important. Our duty as parliamentarians is to strike a balance between those two things. Bill C-55 is a good example, one that proves it is possible to guarantee the security of our fellow citizens while providing an effective framework for the powers conferred on our security services.

However, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives defend purely ideological decisions until they are backed into a corner by public opinion, the players on the ground or judicial authorities. That is the real problem with this government. Our duty as the official opposition is to monitor the government's actions to ensure that measures such as those contained in Bill C-30 or section 184.4 are not secretly brought forward by regulation.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent discourse which once again was imbued with a certain sense of social justice. Speaking of justice, is she not concerned that this bill was drafted in reaction to Bill C-30 which was scrapped because it violated the right to privacy, further to a Supreme Court decision?

In point of fact, this bill prompted cries of outrage from civil society, even from members on the other side of the House. Consequently, 11 months were needed to produce Bill C-55 because the Conservatives were slow to introduce provisions in compliance with the Constitution and with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is my hon. colleague concerned that the Conservatives are tabling bills without first ensuring that they are in compliance with the Constitution and the charter?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Obviously I agree with what she says. In the case of Bill C-30, there was a lack of vision, a lack of consultation and a lack of transparency. Fortunately, this piece of legislation was scrapped.

As far as Bill C-55 goes, it took the Supreme Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the bill for the government to once again set about doing its homework.

Unquestionably, the invasion of privacy is a critically important consideration. Since this bill respects the rule of law and strikes a balance between privacy concerns and investigations that can be carried out, I think it is a step in the right direction and that is what is important.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the primary purpose of Bill C-55 is to enable, in a lawful fashion, a police officer or agency to intercept or listen in on a wiretap or a private conversation without a warrant. That is really what the bill is all about.

To be able to do something of this nature without a warrant raises a great deal of concern and that is why the Supreme Court has said that we have to fix this fundamental flaw in the law. Having said that, part of the legislation says that we would now require provinces, or the minister of justice in a particular province, to provide a report on the number of times this clause would have been used without a warrant. We see that as a positive thing. It ensures there is accountability. We believe the number of times it would be used to tap into a private conversation without a warrant should be somewhat minimal. Therefore, that would justify having the provinces provide an annual report.

I am wondering if the member might want to comment on how important it is that we have accountability when we allow for warrantless wiretaps.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, we can never emphasize too strongly the importance of accountability. Other colleagues of mine have also said the same thing. Clearly, in a democratic society, accountability quite simply helps to preserve our democratic system in which individual freedoms are respected above all else. Safeguards must be put in place and used, but at the same time we must never lose sight of individual freedoms and rights.

As I see it, accountability is critical and is an important part of Bill C-55.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which has been introduced in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

This bill is now at third reading and the NDP will support it. The bill finally corrects a number of previous errors. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Code. The bill makes three provisions in particular.

First, it requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. Second, it provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. Third, it narrows the class of individuals who may make such an interception and, lastly, limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

We are genuinely pleased that the Conservative government has finally introduced Bill C-55. I say "finally" because the government has dragged its feet on this matter.

This bill refers to the obligation set by the Supreme Court, which revealed a deficiency. There was an imbalance between the right to privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to security. There was thus an intrusion of privacy. That is why this bill now strikes a balance between the right to privacy and the right to security.

We now have accountability. Now no one may engage in wiretapping at will, without being accountable. A person who has been wiretapped must be notified within 90 days. Why is this aspect important? Now if an individual who has been wiretapped believes that his or her right to privacy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been violated, that individual may institute legal proceedings against the individuals in question and seek redress. That will help limit overzealous peace officers.

In addition, the number of individuals who may conduct wiretap will now be limited, a fact that also helps strike a balance.

However, the bill is also a response to a total failure by the Conservative government after it introduced its infamous Bill C-30. That bill constituted a direct attack on people's right to privacy and certainly violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was also drafted by the Conservatives in a wholly improvised manner.

It is very important that the NDP remind the Conservatives how crucially important and even essential it is for them to scrutinize all new bills they table in the House of Commons in future. Those bills will have to be well analyzed and checked, and reviewed by lawyers to be sure that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

As a result, the Supreme Court will not be required to hear lengthy and costly cases that waste the precious time of all Canadians. That is essential, and I want to recall that point so that the Conservatives learn a good lesson from it.

It is very important to go through all the stages in a democratic process properly. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a bad habit of wanting to do everything at lightning speed without due regard to the democratic process.

I need only recall its bad budget implementation legislation, Bills C-38 and C-45, omnibus bills of 400 pages each that prevent us from doing our democratic job and from getting to the bottom of things, just as the notorious Bill C-30 did.

In that case, the bill does not make it through the process to committee stage and is neither examined nor evaluated. If there are any deficiencies or aspects that do not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or are unconstitutional, we wind up with a botched job and have to turn to the Supreme Court to assert our rights.

That is why the judgment in R. v. Tse is important. I hope it will finally teach the Conservative government a lesson so that it acts in a systematic and democratic manner in future in order to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

I will go into slightly greater detail on the subject of Bill C-55. This bill requires that an individual whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified of the situation within 90 days, subject to any extension of that period granted by a judge. The bill would also require annual reports to be prepared.

The preparation of annual reports on interceptions of telephone surveillance is truly important in determining whether abusive wiretap has taken place and in being able to monitor such wiretaps. The requirement to prepare an annual report will help keep an eye on all that. The reports will also enable other authorities, such as the Office of the Auditor General, to monitor what is being done in that regard to ensure that the act and the spirit of the act are complied with, that there are no abuses of justice and that the privacy of Canadian citizens is respected. Annual reports must be prepared on the manner in which information intercepted under section 184.4 is used.

These amendments would also limit the authorization that police officers are granted to use this provision. As I mentioned, all peace officers currently have access to it. Its use would thus be limited to the offences set out in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

It is very important that there be accountability for this wiretapping. We know that there may be threats or moments when a security breach can suddenly call for warrantless wiretaps. At that point, however, there must be accountability because there must be no serious abuses or violations of citizens' privacy.

On that point, I consider it important to note again that the NDP believes it has a duty to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that public safety is not undermined.

To sum up, it is important to remember that this new bill is no more than an update of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The court also set new parameters for the protection of privacy.

We believe that the bill meets the standards, and that Canadians have good reasons for apprehension about the Conservatives’ bill with respect to privacy. As I said, their track record in this area is not very impressive. Fortunately, this bill brings balance to the earlier imbalance. We must continue to be vigilant, however.

The NDP will continue to be vigilant with respect to the Conservatives’ bills. In the past, we have seen abuses. We saw abuse in the infamous Bill C-30. We have also seen the familiar dichotomy that the Conservatives love to present, whereby everything is either black or white, but there is no grey, so that is completely false. Bills must be referred to committee for study.

I am happy that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has returned to hear my comments, because he quite rightly mentioned just now the importance of committee work, and how essential committee work is to a sound democracy. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Like my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I know how very important this little-known work is. We meet with experts, and we propose amendments and additions to bills to ensure that they are as close to perfect as possible, that they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, and that they will be worthwhile and improve the well-being of Canadians in our wonderful country.

In closing, we find Bill C-55 well constructed. We appreciate it, because it finally brings balance between privacy and the need for security. That does not mean that we support all of the Conservatives’ bills. On the contrary, they have introduced abusive and infamous bills in the past. Bill C-30 was a horror—need I say again— because it was an absolute threat to people’s privacy. It was a purely conservative bill in the ideological sense of the term. It was an ideological vision.

I know that members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights criticized Bill C-30 repeatedly. I further believe that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou was a member of the committee at the time. No, not quite. However, I know that other colleagues, for example my colleague from Gatineau, worked very hard to criticize the infamous Bill C-30, which was a genuine threat to privacy.

Bill C-30 regrettably demonstrated that the Conservatives can often say outrageous things. Truly outrageous things were said in the House when Bill C-30 was introduced. There were incredible dichotomous comments such as “either you are in favour of security and safety or you are on the side of the pedophiles”. It was a horrible speech with no room for grey areas or other comments. After all that, they backed down on Bill C-30 and introduced a bill that made sense—Bill C-55. I do not often congratulate the Conservatives. They should make the most of it today.

[An hon. member]

No, do not start that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not do this often but they need to be given credit where credit is due. To be honest, the Conservatives sometimes get things right. Not often, but if they will allow us to vote in favour of their Bill, then we are going to do so. We are therefore going to support the Conservatives’ bill at third reading. I believe that the bill is balanced, as I have said before.

My colleague from Gatineau, who has been working very hard as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, has carefully studied the bill, which shows a great deal of prudence, respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is constitutional and responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse. We will therefore support this bill.

I do not know how much time I have left, but as my colleagues know, I could go on for hours.

In that respect, I would like to go back to a few quotes made during this study in committee. If memory serves me correctly, two meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were spent on Bill C-55. The study in committee was peaceful and went well.

I would like to list the NDP members who are on this committee. There is my colleague from Gatineau, who does an excellent job, and my colleagues from Brossard—La Prairie, Brome—Missisquoi and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who have also done excellent work, as always.

In the justice committee meetings, a few witnesses mentioned why they supported this legislation. For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association was in favour of this bill. It generally supports modest, fair and constitutional legislation. That is what its representatives said. Bill C-55 does an admirable job of incorporating the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse. However, they said that there were some parts that the committee could have perhaps spent more time on. They also mentioned that Bill C-55 was a positive legislative measure, as I just said, and that it seeks to find a better balance between protection of the public and protection of privacy, which we think counts the most when it comes to Bill C-55.

There was also a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that stated:

The CBA Section supports the proposed changes in Bill C-55 to [finally] comply with R. v. Tse, but recommends further limits on s. 184.4 interceptions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you move the vote to Wednesday, March 20, following government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 20, following government orders.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

National Charities Week Act

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

moved that Bill C-458, An Act respecting a National Charities Week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-458, an act respecting a national charities week and to amend the Income Tax Act.

Canada is known throughout the world as one of the best countries in which to live. One of the reasons for this reputation is our strong sense of social responsibility. We care about our fellow citizens and we work together to ensure that everyone can fulfill their potential and enjoy a high quality of life.

Charitable organizations put these core values into practice. They do valuable work in our communities, helping those in need and creating a strong, compassionate and inclusive society.

As the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, I have been working since first being elected in 2008 to foster valuable partnerships with the many charitable organizations in my community and across Canada. I have to say that I am constantly impressed by the remarkable work they are doing.

I commend them and all of their volunteers for their commitment to improving the lives of others and for contributing to the quality of life we enjoy here in Canada. However, I do recognize that charities face complex challenges, and adequate funding continues to be an overriding concern.

During the global recession, many organizations saw a drop in donations while demand for their services increased. Stats Canada reported a decline in donations of over 5% in both 2008 and 2009, and while the latest statistics show an increase as our economic recovery takes effect, the current level of donations is still below that of 2007.

With respect to the overall donor base in Canada, the 2010 Canadian survey of giving, volunteering and participating indicates that 25% of donors provide almost 85% of all charitable donations. In other words, charities find themselves relying on a small number of people to make large gifts, and older donors tend to give more.

People give for a variety of reasons. While compassion and altruism remain the primary motivation for charitable donations, 23% of Canadians cited the tax credit as an important factor. This is what motivated my private member's motion in the previous Parliament, which was passed unanimously by this House in 2011 and resulted in the finance committee study on tax incentives for charitable donations.

The finance committee study reviewed the current tax system and considered changes that could motivate increased giving. By all accounts, this was a very worthwhile exercise. The study brought together charitable organizations, experts and stakeholders and generated a comprehensive discussion about the challenges and opportunities faced by the sector.

I would like to thank the finance committee members for their excellent work, as well as the witnesses who contributed their expertise and suggestions.

I am pleased with the recommendations contained in the report, which focus on tax incentives, transparency, red tape reduction for charitable organizations and public awareness.

I am optimistic that this will lead to real action to benefit our charities and the donors who support them.

Building on the momentum of this committee study, I am pleased to now have the opportunity to advance an initiative that I believe will continue to raise awareness of Canada's charitable sector and lead to increased support.

During the committee study, I was intrigued with the proposal to extend the charitable tax donation deadline. It was suggested that this extension would make it easier for Canadians to donate to the causes that are truly important to them.

To ascertain the sector's response to such a measure, I held a round table with a number of charities in my riding and consulted with representatives from national charitable organizations. Many felt that this was a common sense idea with great potential. Based on this positive feedback, I proceeded with this initiative and tabled my bill on October 31, 2012.

My private member's bill, Bill C-458, proposes to extend the deadline for charitable donations by 60 days, so that eligible donations made up until March 1 may be claimed in the previous calendar year. In addition, my bill proposes to establish the last seven days of February as national charities week in Canada.

There are a number of reasons I believe this measure will lead to enhanced support for charitable organizations. The current deadline of December 31, as we know, falls during the busy holiday season. At this time, of course, Canadians are not usually focused on strategic financial planning.

Further, many charitable organizations are challenged to provide staff during this busy time in order to seize year-end donations and to process receipts. Then when tax time comes in February, people may realize that if they had made a charitable donation, they could have reduced their tax payable and maybe even received a tax refund. Of course, by then it is too late.

While many Canadians give generously during the holiday season for altruistic reasons, my proposal, I believe, would create a second season of giving in the first 60 days of the year, a period that many charities have told me does not typically see a high level of donation activity.

In addition, moving the deadline to the tax preparation season in February would provide a motivation to increase giving in order to maximize existing financial tax incentives. It would raise awareness of the charitable tax credit and encourage Canadians to give more prominent consideration to including charitable giving in their financial planning and tax preparation decisions.

My proposal would enable individuals to have a complete picture of their financial situation when considering charitable donations, the same as they currently do with the registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs. This would benefit the many Canadians who are not salaried employees: small business owners, part-time workers, students and those whose income varies throughout the year.

In fact, Canadians who plan their charitable giving tend to give more. According to the 2007 Canadian survey of giving, volunteering and participating, fewer than 20% of donors plan their charitable donations. However, those who do plan their donations give an average of almost $800 annually, compared to $350 for those who do not plan in advance.

Other studies have shown that people who build charity into their financial plans are much less likely to decrease their level of giving during an economic downturn. The finance committee's report on tax incentives for charitable giving emphasized the need to raise public awareness in order to promote increased giving and I believe this is what my bill would help to achieve.

It would also contribute to creating a culture of giving among Canadians that will support and sustain the charitable sector over the long term so that charitable organizations can continue their valuable work in our communities. To further underscore the importance of Canada's charitable sector, national charities week would present charitable organizations with the opportunity to highlight their work and tell their stories, and for all Canadians to celebrate their achievements. Canadians demonstrate their generosity when they see how their donations make a difference in the lives of others.

Since introducing my bill last fall, I have received a great deal of positive feedback from across the country, from individual Canadians, charitable organizations, many of my colleagues and the media. For example, an editorial in my local newspaper, the Waterloo Region Record, stated:

Braid’s bill strikes us as a non-partisan, common sense proposal that deserves support across the political spectrum. It should be passed.

An editorial in the National Post observed the following:

This is a small change, but a significant one. It will ease the burden on charities, and individuals, by providing a little end-of-year breathing room for those who would like to donate but find that the cut-off date has passed before they are able to.

One of my constituents stated, “As a person who works in leadership in a charitable organization, and sits on the Boards of several others, I think this makes very good sense and I appreciate it”. A second constituent wrote to me and said, “After a lifetime as a tax practitioner and also having a close association with charitable organizations, I think you have identified a simple solution to increasing charitable giving among Canadians. Well done”. Lastly, another constituent wrote, “Bravo! ...I do wish I had thought of that, as a lifelong professional fund raiser, now retired. If there is any way that I can help you in your endeavour, please do contact me”.

Twitter, that great litmus test of public opinion, gave a great deal of positive encouragement to my initiative, including a tweet that said, “Could be a fascinating game changer for charities to raise funds”.

However, as with any new initiative, the bill has also raised some concerns regarding its implementation. For this reason, it is important that the bill receive a full examination at committee to ensure, as I believe, that the advantages will far outweigh any potential perceived disadvantages.

As a government, we need to further enhance our partnerships with charities to seek their input and expertise and to further promote the important role that charities play in our society. As members of Parliament, all of us in the House are here to work for the greater good and are striving to make a difference in the lives of the people we serve. I encourage all members to support my bill, which will further support our charities and help them to fulfill our shared goal of building a better society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize the hundreds of charitable organizations from coast to coast and the phenomenal work they do not only within Canada, but outside of it as well.

We should recognize that Bill C-458 will have a fairly profound impact in individuals being able to contribute toward charities. When we talk about that extension, we see things like RRSPs and the impact they have had. We look forward to ultimately seeing the bill go to the next stage in anticipation that there will be a great deal of feedback provided.

To get more on the record the incredible work the huge number of charitable organizations do, I want compliment to the member for bringing forward the bill. We look forward to the next stage. I would like to provide him with another opportunity to maybe add a few words.