House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON
Madam Speaker, I ask that the votes be deferred to Wednesday, June 8, at the conclusion of the time provided for oral questions.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The votes are deferred.
It being 6 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 April 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable gifts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has seven minutes remaining from the last debate.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise again in the House to debate this bill. In fact, life sometimes hands us pleasant surprises. Between the time that I finished the first part of my speech on this bill, which as members know is on the taxation of charitable gifts, and the time I rose just now, something interesting happened; I am referring to the publication of the parliamentary budget officer's report on this bill. In fact, it is in line with the expectations I had for this bill.
Initially, the person who introduced the bill talked about the possibility that the tax expenditures associated with the bill could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The parliamentary budget officer was much more forceful in studying the scope of this bill. In fact, he said that by 2020, this bill could cost the Canadian government anywhere from $1.7 billion to $2 billion in lost additional revenue. This is not a detail; we are talking about a measure that fundamentally harms the country's finances.
We all know that the bill would modify the tax credit for people who make charitable gifts to make it similar to the tax credit for political donations. Instead of what is in place now, the exemption would be 75% for the first $400, then 50% for amounts between $500 and $750, and 25% for any amount above $750. The problem it that there is no cap mentioned in the bill. We know that political donations currently have a cap of $1,500. That is problematic because the parliamentary budget officer assessed not only the costs of this measure for the public purse, but also who would benefit from it, namely who makes charitable donations and is eligible to this tax deduction. His conclusion is that a large proportion of these donations are made by the 10% of the population with the highest income. In fact, those who earn $91,000 and over give six times more than average.
It is very important to make charitable donations and to support these organizations. During the previous Parliament, the NDP supported a number of these measures, including the first-time donor's super credit. However, at some point, we have to wonder how far we want to go with supporting these types of donations.
Since this is a private member's bill, we will have a free vote, but I think that the proposed tax credit disproportionately benefits people with high incomes who are in a much better position to donate.
The scope of this bill is different from the other measures we debated in the previous Parliament. I mentioned the first-time donor's super credit. The NDP supported other measures regarding tax benefits, for example, for donations of art, land, public assets, or shares. I think that going in this direction would be too much, not only because of the cost, but also because it would not necessarily generate donations, as much as it would support major donors who have the highest incomes.
We also have to wonder about something for which we have yet to get a proper answer. This tax credit is generally combined with a provincial tax credit. When you take the impact this measure will have at the federal level and add it to impact of the existing provincial tax credits, in some tax brackets, the tax credit would be higher than what would be paid in tax for this income. This would mean that someone could donate more and more to a charity in order to avoid paying taxes and to make a net gain.
This measure will support charities, but it will not be about a donor's commitment. The measure will be designed to allow people to pay less and get more.
Donations would no longer be made solely to satisfy charitable impulses, but for tax planning purposes. People would come out on top because the amount of the tax credit would be higher than that of the charitable donation.
That brings up some questions about how the Government of Canada wants to support various causes. If government revenues drop by between $1.7 billion and $2 billion, that is obviously going to affect public services eventually.
The fact that the government, guided by the public good, can make appropriate choices about how that money is allocated to public services makes that money much more important than a charitable donation to a particular organization selected by an individual. I am not saying that the causes themselves are not worthwhile. On the contrary, most of them are.
However, if we are talking about how to allocate up to $2 billion, decisions will have to be made about which services to cut, and the outcome could be bad for the public good.
That is why I will be voting against Bill C-239 at second reading. It would cost the public purse an awful lot of money; there is no cap on donations; we already have measures in place, some of them thanks to the former government, to encourage people to donate to charity; and there will be unintended tax consequences when people no longer make donations to causes they care about with no expectation of personal gain and being doing so for tax planning purposes.
Those are all of the reasons why I will be voting against the bill. I invite the member to address some of these major concerns in his reply.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-239, the fairness in charitable gifts act.
I want to give a special thanks to the member for Provencher for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. It is a good bill and it is an important bill for Canadian charities. I personally am exceptionally proud to be the seconder of this piece of legislation and will be voting in favour of this private member's bill.
To begin it is important to review what the bill would do. Donations that are made to a charitable cause would receive similar tax treatment as donations made to political parties.
I firmly believe that Canadians are generous people. They give freely and willingly of their hard-earned dollars to support charitable causes in which they believe. With these donations, charities and charitable causes do exceptionally good work locally in our communities, across the country, and globally.
From time to time here in the House during statements by members, we have the opportunity to highlight some of the great charitable work done by charities in our ridings. I was proud to highlight the work of Big Brothers Big Sisters of North Wellington a couple of months ago and the hard work that they do to serve young people in our communities.
As a member of Parliament for a great riding, I often receive invitations to a number of charitable events supporting a number of different research funding opportunities, whether it is for research into deadly diseases or opportunities to help combat and raise awareness of violence against women.
Just last month I was driving through the small town of Monkton, Ontario, in the north part of Perth County, and I came across a group of three young kids hosting a lemonade stand. They were raising funds for the Canadian Red Cross to help those who had been displaced by the wildfires in Fort McMurray. That is the type of charitable giving and charitable opportunity that I want to see expanded across our country.
In the same vein, I was pleased to learn that the grade 2 class of Ms. Inglis-Eickmeier at Central Perth Elementary School in my riding were raising funds for the Canadian Red Cross and for those who had been displaced by the wildfires. They hosted a bake sale, but just raising that money alone was not enough for them. They wanted to do more, so they took to social media. Using the hashtag #KidsHelpYMM, they issued a challenge to neighbouring schools across the region to do their part as well to help raise funds for this important cause.
In Stratford, the House of Blessing, which was founded by Florence and Norman Kehl more than 33 years ago, helps to provide food, shelter, and clothing to those in need. They founded it on the simple motto and simple purpose “to serve those who are hurting and in need”.
We have so many great organizations and charitable causes in all of our ridings and it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to support them in any way we can. They struggle to raise funds, yet they persevere.
I have heard from a number of constituents across my riding in support of the bill. One constituent from Arthur in the Township of Wellington North wrote, "I kindly ask you to consider supporting this bill as it will be beneficial for many charities in Canada”. Another constituent in St. Marys wrote, “I want to let you know that I am in favour of this bill. Charities rely on donors and I believe that this will encourage more people to donate”. From Mount Forest a constituent wrote, “I urge you, as my member of Parliament, to help all charities with your support of this bill”. The bill has support among the constituents of Perth—Wellington, and members will find that the bill has support across Canada.
Often when we ask people why they do not donate, the challenge is that they cannot afford it. The bill would encourage those people to donate for the first time and encourage those who already donate to donate more. It would increase the size of tax credits available and make it more affordable for those who want to donate more.
Canadians would be surprised when they learn that the tax treatment of charitable donations is so different from that of political donations. It does not reflect our values as Canadians. Canadians do not believe that funding political parties should be more important and more lucrative than funding charitable causes.
Bill C-239 is an important step forward in supporting the many great charitable causes in Canada and making the Income Tax Act more fair. By increasing the value of tax credits given to Canadians for charitable donations, the House would be doing tremendous good for our country.
Raising the value of tax credits for charitable donations would have several benefits. First, it would lower taxes for Canadians who choose to donate their hard-earned money to support charitable causes. I believe that every member of the House would agree that we as the Canadian Parliament should reward those who donate to charitable causes.
Second, it would increase the likelihood that Canadians would donate to charities. We have seen how this has worked in the past. In 2013, our former Conservative government introduced the first-time donors tax credit. In that year we saw an increase of almost 100,000 Canadians donating to registered charities for the first time in six years.
Third, increasing the size of tax credits for charitable donations would make it more affordable for Canadians who already donate. Here is a simple example. Donating $200 to a charitable cause such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the Alzheimer Society would provide an average Canadian with a tax credit of about $30. Under this new bill, that same donation would receive about $150 tax credit. Donors could now donate that difference of $120 to the same charitable cause or to other charitable causes as they might see fit. It would give more benefits to Canadians in their donations.
This leads me to my fourth point. The bill would increase donation revenues for charitable organizations and charitable causes and enable them to further the good work they do in all of our communities.
Charitable organizations are an incredibly effective and efficient way to deliver help to those in need. In my own experience, I have often found that charities are more efficient in delivering services than is government.
Governments ought not always be the default source of services to Canadians. Governments should provide services when the private sector and non-profit sector have challenges in doing so. The recent example of the Fort McMurray wildfires shows the way in which we as a country and the government relied on charitable causes like the Red Cross to help deliver services to those in that region.
The bill would enable charities to provide more services to more Canadians and more people in need. The fairness in charitable gifts act is good for charities, it is good for donors, and it is good for government, and it will fix an unfair double standard in the Income Tax Act. My colleague from Provencher put it best: feeding a politician should not be more important than feeding a family.
I am extremely proud to support the bill.
Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActPrivate Members' Business
Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank my hon. colleague for his great work on this private member's bill. We have enormous respect for the work that has been done by every member when they present private member's bills, and the member knows because we did talk to each other about how much l respect his work and how much I value his contribution to public debate in Canada.
However, life is about choice, and l will outline why, as government, we will not be supporting the bill, and I will try to explain to the member in the most respectful way what the reasons are for that choice.
We recognize the spirit and good intentions of Bill C-239, which amends the Income Tax Act regarding charitable gifts. Of course our government applauds the important work done by Canadian charitable organizations, as well as the generosity that leads Canadians all across the country to donate to charities every year.
That said, the government cannot support this bill for a number of reasons. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that if Bill C-239 were to pass, it would cost the government about $1.7 billion more in 2016, and $1.9 billion more in 2020. He estimates that the total annual cost of the tax credit for charitable gifts would be as high as $4.2 billion in 2016, which is an increase of nearly 68%.
In this debate, I think it is important to take into account the considerable cost of this proposal and the fact that tax incentives for charitable donations are already very generous in Canada. Canada boasts countless assets, and one of those assets is the generosity of its people. They are compassionate, tolerant and kind. They give countless hours of their time to just causes, such as welcoming refugees, serving meals to the poor, taking care of patients in hospitals who are far from their family, and taking care of the environment by cleaning up the shorelines of our lakes and rivers, for example.
Canadians' generosity is so huge that it accounts for 8.5% of GDP. That is more than Canada's auto sector or retail sector. These organizations have a role to play in Canadian society. They contribute to the quality of life in all our neighbourhoods, and they support communities. Basically, they are crucial to social cohesion. That is why the Canadian government supports them, in particular, when it comes to taxes.
First, registered charities are already exempt from paying income tax. Also, Canadian taxpayers and businesses that make donations to these charities are eligible for a tax break. Including all provincial tax deductions, every Canadian can get back, on average, 46% of every dollar donated above $200. Moreover, charitable donations can represent up to 75% of an individual's net income and be deferred for five years.
Federal support for charities is really important. At about $3 billion a year, it is among the highest in the world. Canadians are also very generous. In 2013, donations to charities and not-for-profit organizations totalled $12.8 billion Canadian.
I want to point out that even without a tax credit, Canadians are very generous, as we all know. Statistics Canada proved it in its 2015 general social survey. Ninety-one per cent of the time, Canadiens give out of compassion, and 88% of the time, they give because of personal belief. Only one-quarter of survey respondents said that they were motivated by the tax credit.
We can proudly say that Canadians are agents of change for their country. They are engaged in their communities, and they are politically engaged as well.
In 2003, changes were made to the political financing act to encourage Canadians to get involved in politics. It was decided that an annual limit should be set on personal contributions to a political party. Furthermore, the related tax credit must be claimed in the year in which the contribution is made. Unlike a charitable donation, the credit cannot be carried forward, and the maximum amount that may be claimed is much lower.
The charitable donation tax credit, with the limit of net income and the five-year carry-forward period, is much more generous for large donations. These are two very different types of donations, and there are two different deduction frameworks. The charitable donation tax credit and the political contribution tax credit have different objectives and are structured differently. The charitable donation tax credit is designed to encourage individuals to make larger donations to registered charities and other qualified donees.
This means that the higher the donation amount, the higher the tax credit. By comparison, the political contribution tax credit's goal is to encourage widespread public participation in the political process by giving generous tax assistance for small contributions to federal political parties and candidates. For that particular credit, as donation amounts rise, tax assistance goes down.
When developing tax measures, it is important not to compare apples and oranges. Studies have shown that if Canadians have to choose between making a charitable or a political donation, they prefer doing both. Canadians are politically engaged, and they expect the government to bring greater transparency, as promised. We committed to restore Canadians' confidence in the political system by proving to them that their vote counts and they play a part in shaping public policy.
The first step will be to engage in a nationwide discussion with Canadians on reforms to the electoral system. We will then establish a special all-party committee, which will make proposals for electoral reform. A good government is an open and transparent government. That is why budget 2016 includes $10.7 million over the next four years to organize activities that will encourage Canadians to participate in the reform process. Changes to the electoral system will result from an open and transparent process, which is what we promised and Canadians are calling for.
To serve Canadians, who are so generous, it is important that the government carefully scrutinize its expenditures and eliminate ineffective programs that do not or no longer meet our objectives. In closing, I would like to remind the House about our government's efforts to directly support this country's middle class. We have cut taxes for nine million Canadians, and we have introduced the Canada child benefit, which will be fairer, more generous, and simpler than what the former government put in place. We have invested in innovation, infrastructure, indigenous peoples, and youth.
In closing, this bill would increase the costs associated with tax credits for charitable donations by about $1 billion a year. This would diminish the government's ability to pay for important public programs that Canadians rely on. It would actually diminish our ability to invest in the country's future.
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-239, the fairness in charitable gifts act.
I would like to congratulate the member for Provencher on being chosen to be the first to introduce a private member's bill to the House.
I am very proud to be here today to represent my riding of Yellowhead, home of so many generous Canadians.
We have numerous charitable organizations: food banks, animal rescue centres, historical foundations, and art centres, just to name a few. These are located in every community in Canada. The bill before us is a great bill for all members of the House and their ridings. It would help every riding in this country.
The depth and scope of the non-profit and voluntary sector in Alberta has provided a wide variety of services to the communities. Non-profit and volunteer organizations touch virtually all aspects of our communities.
As was just mentioned, 8.5% of our gross domestic product is made by charitable organizations. There are more than 86,000 registered charities, 81,000 non-profit groups or corporations, and more than 750 community agencies. These all play very vital roles in our communities.
One of the most important things they do is to leverage volunteers from across Canada, millions of volunteers who put in countless hours helping our communities. There is no doubt of the generosity of the people in Alberta and the generosity of Canadians. It is so broad and wide.
I do not think anything could be clearer than what has transpired in Fort McMurray, Alberta, in the last month. Donations flooded into charities from across Canada. Hotels opened their doors, and people donated personal money, food, rations, and gas.
I would like to share a story.
Two days after the fire started, I was en route back to my riding of Yellowhead. I was stopped at the Toronto airport and having a meal. There was a lady sitting beside me and we started a conversation. I asked if she was coming or going, and she said that she was going. I asked her where she was coming from, and she said Fort McMurray. She was right in the heat of the fire, and was going home to Nova Scotia. She said that they ran from the camp, grabbed their vehicle with the fuel it had in it, and headed south. They ran out of fuel and were stranded, but lo and behold, a person came driving up in a pickup truck with jerry cans of fuel and gave them the fuel free. She said she taken aback by that.
I mention this story because of the generosity of Canadians. Canadians give. Maybe we can give back a little bit, and this is what the bill would do.
So far, as of yesterday when I checked on the computer, $125 million has been raised by Canadians to give to non-profit groups and charities for the Fort McMurray fires. It is $125 million that our government has to match, and it could be up to $126 million today.
It is very interesting to note how Canadians pulled together in all parts of this country to support services in their communities. It is the generosity of donors that makes these agencies work, such as the Red Cross, animal shelters, senior centres, and community groups.
However, over the last 25 years we have seen donations drop, and not by a small amount. We have seen donations drop by approximately 33% in the last 25 years, and that is a lot of money. Charities are suffering, and they need that money to operate.
The fairness and charitable gifts act would help. What is alarming to me, and it was mentioned earlier, is that there was more money given in campaign donations than there was to charitable organizations. I find it alarming that people will not give more to charitable organizations that look after people, animals, and communities in need. That needs to change. We need to give more money to these organizations.
Bill C-239 is a great initiative to level the playing field. The primary motivation for donating is the compassion and personal belief of most people. I think people want to give. Some people find it harder than others. Those who are affluent can give more, but if people get a tax benefit from doing so, even those who are less able will probably contribute some money. Bill C-239 ensures that people who want to give larger amounts will be able to. It would be much fairer.
It has been mentioned that it is the current government's desire to strengthen the middle class, giving more help to those who need it and less to those who do not. This is exactly what Bill C-239 would do: give more money to those who need it and less to those who do not and allow those who have more money to give more than those who do not. If we had a fair tax exemption program, as this bill is asking for, people would give more generously.
I have heard it mentioned across the floor that this tax benefit would cost $1.7 billion a year and would come from our national coffers. I am going to read a quote, which says, “increase the costs associated with tax credits for charitable donations by about [$1.7] billion a year, which would diminish the government's ability to pay for important public programs that Canadians rely on”.
Yes, it is a lot of money, and it may increase as time goes on, but we need to look at what the charitable groups and non-profit organizations in this great country of ours do for the communities they serve. If they did not exist and were not helping the needy, the hungry, and the homeless and offering different programs within their communities, the cost to government, whether it be municipal, federal, or provincial government, the $1.7 billion, would be a bit like that.
The government says that it will have a serious economic impact. Madam Speaker, I say to you that it would be a lot more serious if people were to stop giving to the non-profit and charitable groups, so we should encourage Canadians, who are so generous. We know that. Canadians are probably the most generous people in the world. Let us give them the opportunity to give more freely and more comfortably and give them a bit of a tax benefit for doing so.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the members for their consideration of my private member's bill, Bill C-239, the fairness in charitable gifts act. I know I have support in all the parties. I do not know how much support, but I know that all the parties have members who have indicated that they will support the bill, and for that I thank them.
It is an honour for me to rise in the House today to talk about my bill. I wish I could spend a bit more time talking about some of the information that was given here this evening to clarify some of the statistics and numbers. However, I do not have that much time, so I will stick to the speech I have prepared, and hopefully we can move this bill on to committee for further study to evaluate its merits.
This is a fair bill, it is a bill that would benefit all Canadians, and it is a bill that would foster a culture of generosity from coast to coast. The aim of the bill is to strengthen charities and encourage Canadians to engage with and promote charities. This is a non-partisan bill. This is not a bill for rich people. It would hardly benefit rich people or those who are making big donations. It is a bill that, for the most part, would help the middle class. That is something the government has said it is all about, helping the middle class, and that is what this bill is about.
The impact charities make across Canada, in all of our communities, is evident. It was most recently demonstrated during the recent forest fires in Fort McMurray. The lives of tens of thousands of Canadians were turned upside down. Yet through all that devastation, the Canadian Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and many other charitable groups rose to the challenge and were there to help.
The help from charities will continue. Long after the government, long after the cameras, long after the media are gone, the charities will be there to continue that good work to help the residents of Fort McMurray recover from the trauma. They will help them rebuild their homes and re-establish their shattered lives. Where would the residents of Fort McMurray be without these charities?
Bill C-239 is a bill that would inspire Canadians and foster a culture of generosity, a characteristic that I believe is central to our country and its people, a characteristic that has been evident in the support for Fort McMurray.
The bill would make it more affordable for Canadians to donate to charitable causes. Causes that do not get national media attention and do not catch the eye of the camera are often just as individually devastating to the people experiencing them as the fires in Fort McMurray. They just do not happen to capture the attention of the national media.
Every day, every night, right across Canada, tragedies happen. Folks lose their jobs, illness attacks, families are broken, and people's lives are shattered.
However, there is good news. The good news is that charities are there to provide food for the hungry, beds for the homeless, help for the hurting, support for the aging, and hope for the sick.
Where would we all be without charities?
Canadian charities do more than just that, though. They do more than just crisis intervention, more than just assistance to those folks who are needy. They conduct and advance scientific research. They promote medical research. They promote education. They promote care of our environment. The list could go on and on. Charities have also been instrumental in the resettling of refugee families. We heard from our immigration minister today the way charities right across Canada have ponied up, have come to the table, and are waiting for the refugees. They have made commitments to help settle these folks. That is what charities here in Canada do.
Yet despite all this good work they do and the incredible impact charities have on our lives, the fact remains that charities all cite a lack of funding as the number one reason for their inability to do more.
Canadian charities are faced with an aging and ever-declining donor base. In fact, the number of Canadians donating to charities and filing charitable donations on their tax returns has dropped from a high of 29.5% to 21.4% over the past 25 years. The donor base is declining, and that is something this bill would address.
The bill would incur a cost for our government. There would be a dip in revenue. However, what would cost even more and what we cannot afford is a capability gap in our charities due to a lack of donations.
When surveyed by Statistics Canada, 71% of Canadians stated that the number one reason they do not give is the lack of money. They simply cannot afford to give more.
How are we going to address that challenge?
Currently, the federal tax credits for political donations far exceed the federal tax credits for donations to charities.
As I am out of time, I would like to conclude by encouraging members in this House to support the bill and get it to committee where we can continue to study further its merits and make this happen.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 8, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Madam Speaker, I am eager to stand in the House today to bring up an important issue that has been continuously repeated in the chamber since the tragedy that occurred in my riding on January 22 of this year. With the suicide crisis that we are witnessing in Attawapiskat, La Loche, Cross Lake, northern Manitoba, and in other communities, it is more urgent now than ever to intervene and provide the mental health services that communities so desperately need.
I have stood here several times, along with my colleagues, to call on the Minister of Health to urgently invest in culturally sensitive and accessible mental health services for communities in northern Saskatchewan and across the country. I do not want to sound repetitive, but I truly believe that when the constituents of my riding sent me here when they elected me, they mandated me with this great honour to represent them in Parliament and to voice their concerns as loudly as needed. That is why I am here to raise once again this matter to the Minister of Health.
The annual suicide rate in Saskatchewan's Keewatin Yatthé Regional Health Authority, which includes La Loche, is the highest of any health authority in the province. At 43.3 suicide deaths per 100,000 people between 2008 and 2012, the northern health region has a suicide rate more than triple the provincial rate of 12.7.
To add pain to injury, since the tragic event in La Loche on January 22, 2016, a great number of youth, their families, and the community at large, have been suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, a mental health condition that is triggered by a terrifying event, either experiencing it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares, and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event. For a community that already has a high suicide rate, we can see the urgency of providing accessible mental health services. Since the event in La Loche, there have been several suicide attempts due to PTSD, and some were successful.
We know the government's budget allocated zero additional dollars for mental health care, despite the urgent need. In fact, last week in committee we learned that there is a $30-million cut in Health Canada's mental wellness funding for indigenous peoples. Mental wellness teams are also saying they need $40 million to $50 million dollars to be able to provide the ideal level of service for every community.
The World Health Organization has stated:
The social determinants of health are the circumstances in which people are born, grow up, live, work and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness. These circumstances are in turn shaped by a wider set of forces: economics, social policies, and politics.
Research shows that Canadian aboriginal people, including first nations, Métis, and Inuit, face gaps and disparities in dynamics, such as economic opportunities, literacy, and community well-being. The government can play a huge role in tackling these disparities.
In April, the Prime Minister told students in Oskayak High School in Saskatchewan that he would make a significant investment in project venture. In fact, project venture was highly appreciated by the community in La Loche. It offered a range of hands-on cultural activities for youth, from rabbit snaring to canoe trips. These were activities that kept our youth engaged and happy. This program was cut in 2015 by the—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order please, your four minutes is up.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for her tireless work in reminding this House about the importance of our support for that community and indigenous communities right across Canada.
Our government was elected with a mandate to renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We are moving forward and away from the previous government's style of relations with first nations. We have committed to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations. Our government recognizes that addressing mental health and wellness issues are important priorities for indigenous communities.
Providing mental health services is a shared undertaking by federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Our government supports first nations and Inuit community mental wellness through a number of programs and services, including activities aimed at mental health promotion, suicide prevention, addictions treatment, after-care services, counselling, and other crisis response services, as well as supports to former students of Indian residential schools and their families.
The goal of these programs is to provide first nations and Inuit individuals and communities with culturally appropriate mental wellness services and supports that are responsive to their needs. We are investing $271.3 million in 2016-17 for these programs and services. This amount includes $13.5 million annually for the national aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, which supports 138 community-based suicide prevention projects in first nations and Inuit communities.
In addition to community-based mental wellness programs and services, the non-insured health benefits program provides access to mental health counselling benefits to eligible first nations and Inuit individuals. This demand-driven benefit is often used to deploy additional professional resources in communities when there is a need for surge capacity.
This program has a list of registered mental health professionals who can supply support when there is a need that exceeds the local capacity. In 2015-16, expenditures amounted to $16.2 million for mental health counselling within this program. Building on best practices, we know that the support provided to individuals, families, and communities should be culturally safe and community-driven. Lasting solutions require work with our partners, including first nations and Inuit organizations and, most importantly, with the communities themselves.
Health Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, and indigenous mental wellness leaders co-developed the first nations mental wellness continuum framework. Through this process, communities were engaged, and brought their ideas to the table. Culture emerged as foundational.
Community innovation, partnerships across government, collaboration and coordination across sectors, and linkages between programs and services were also identified as being crucial for moving forward. This framework has been ratified by the Assembly of First Nations' chiefs.
Health Canada is a partner in implementing the framework, which calls for integrated models of service delivery that focus on community strengths and indigenous knowledge. This framework is guiding our efforts and investments in mental wellness for first nations communities moving forward.
We are also now working with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to develop a mental wellness continuum framework for Inuit people, expected to be completed during this fiscal year. It will support an Inuit-specific approach to mental wellness.
Strategies to prevent suicide and improve mental health for first nations and Inuit need to be developed, planned and managed in partnership with first nations and Inuit. Our government remains committed to working with indigenous leaders at the national and regional levels to ensure we have strategies that are grounded in culture, based on evidence, including indigenous evidence, and where first nations and Inuit play a central role in defining the goals, planning the approach, and managing the services.
This approach recognizes that there are distinct differences between and among indigenous peoples and communities, and is respectful of their unique needs, cultures—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order please.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Madam Speaker, to follow up, I appreciate the feedback you provided just now.
However, on the ground, at the local level, not just in La Loche but in communities, and in the constituency, throughout Canada, and at the committee I was at today, the Inuit spoke about some of the framework that you are speaking to. Again, those are still discussion stages.
There is an urgency right now. How can we ensure that the immediacy is still supported, and make sure that community members feel they have something to look forward to?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Before we continue, I want to remind the members that they are to address their questions to the Chair and not to an individual member.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.