Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on the bill regarding a National Charities Week by showing how the government has gradually transferred many of its fundamental responsibilities to the private sector.
Over the years, during my brief experience in the House, I have noticed the government's trend of transferring responsibilities, as well as withdrawing and, at the very least, attempting to distance itself from its obligations to provide services to Canadians.
Strange as it may seem, the government is attempting to transfer its own responsibilities to paragovernmental bodies that are not accountable to Canadians. I will provide evidence of this in my speech. The House will therefore be in a position to draw its own conclusions.
Although we cannot but welcome efforts to increase charitable donations, we must carefully look at the impact of the proposed measures on federal revenues, on the total amount of donations and on their distribution, in light of the current political situation.
Based on my experience as deputy aboriginal affairs critic, I have noticed that the government blindly delegates the implementation parameters for public policy measures. Once again this morning, when I attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, members were dealing with the issue of safe drinking water on first nations reserves.
The evidence provided by the witnesses who had been invited to appear this morning reflected the government’s barely concealed desire to transfer its obligations to agencies and bodies that are rarely accountable to the general public, even though band councils are accountable to members of the first nations.
In this case, the Canadian government is trying to transfer its own obligations to band councils, by virtue of the fiduciary relationship that the Crown has with first nations. Moreover, it is doing so without necessarily transferring the budget envelope that should go along with it.
This kind of reasoning is applicable in many other areas, not just aboriginal affairs. Over the years, we have seen the Conservatives simply trying to shift that weight and pass it on to others. Certain highly controversial issues can often be seen in a positive light by some. Ultimately, they are covered by the media and taken up by international bodies.
In this case, we are talking about safe drinking water, but in terms of charities, we are talking about the delivery of services to Canadians. This puts the government in a more or less favourable light. That is why the government is distancing itself, or at least why there is a very clear desire to do so in this case.
In this speech, I will give concrete examples that support this position and that show how the government’s desire and these distancing measures we see day after day are detrimental. I cannot speak to the past but, over the two years that I have been here, I have observed the government’s gradual withdrawal. This will have a negative impact on all Canadians.
Considering the unstable economic situation in Canada, it is important to condemn the government’s gradual withdrawal from the provision of services to Canadians. The government needs to maintain social programs and make further investments in them to reduce the visible strain on the charitable sector and prevent essential government services from being replaced by charities.
This is especially true because charities, just like first nations, do not necessarily have the budget envelope to provide services to the public. They are not always accountable; this depends on how closely they are tied to government bodies. Some charitable organizations are simply not accountable. How convenient for them.
Finally, the government has divested itself of highly controversial areas. It can simply say that it is no longer responsible for these areas since another organization has taken charge of the whole thing.
I would now like to delve into my own personal experience. I often discuss issues at the empirical level and today will be no different.
Coming back to my own practice, as a lawyer working for legal aid and also as a private counsel, when I opened my own office in August or September 2010, I occasionally worked on a voluntary basis, in order to increase the glamour and build a reputation as an ethical lawyer. In legal parlance, the Latin term pro bono is used for this. The Barreau du Québec and the other bar associations just about everywhere in the country strongly urge their members to work pro bono, that is, to work on a voluntary basis.
When I worked on criminal cases, or even more obviously, when I provided services to clients with mental health needs, it sometimes happened that the clients were not eligible for legal aid for financial or other reasons.
In some cases, the process was already under way, and as the case progressed I realized that legal aid had refused its assistance. I was still responsible for these cases. I simply decided to continue providing my services to the client. I did not do it in order to gain some financial reward or for a mercenary purpose, but because my help was needed. In addition, no other lawyer would have taken on these cases free of charge. So I provided these services for no personal benefit.
I would like to come back to one point regarding charities. When you work on a voluntary basis or pro bono, disinterest must always be kept in mind. You do not do the work with profit in mind. The primary reason for working on a voluntary basis or pro bono is to ensure that everyone benefits from one’s services and skills.
In my own case, this was quite beneficial, because my reputation grew, and I like to think this was one of the inducements or at least one of the elements that led to my election in 2011. People were already aware of my pro bono work and the fact that I provided services free of charge for people who were poor and vulnerable.
To come back to this notion of disinterest, some lawyers who call themselves “first nation specialists” often lurk around band councils with the idea of making a profit. Some lawyers will say that they are doing pro bono work on a case. Strangely enough, these are the same people who will demand $100,000 per month from Indian bands. This is not really what pro bono means. I would like to make an aside to discuss another Latin expression: obiter dictum. This means that I am saying something in passing.
In summary, when you perform work on a pro bono basis, you have to keep in mind that there will be no payment for the work. I would like to send this message to my friends the first nation specialists.
Finally, it is important to point out that the best approach to the matter under consideration is to implement a comprehensive, consistent, long-term charity policy. Beyond the ostentatious aspect of the issue, it may be worthwhile to assess the entire matter in light of the Conservatives’ double-talk.
Beneath a facade of magnanimity and compassion, supported by expensive marketing hype, the actual implementation of their policies means gaps in funding and targeted attacks on agencies that hold positions that clash with government policy.
This can be seen in bodies other than charitable organizations. The government looks down on some agencies, bodies and band councils and even certain clans that are moderately favourable or freethinking, that are able to express their own position. Strangely, they can also experience a gap in funding, and the government speaks contemptuously about them.
I will repeat my own words. At a meeting with first nations that was meant to be historic, some groups ended up on the sidewalk and were treated as undesirables. In that case and in the case of certain charitable organizations, there has been some cherry picking over the years. Some organizations have had their funding cut because they were not conspicuously favourable to the ideas expressed or at least because they took positions that came into conflict with the ideology of this government.
Clearly, in 2013, the Conservatives have a poor idea of freedom of expression and freethinkers.
I submit this respectfully.