44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/22/22 10:01:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), the House approve the reappointment of Joe Friday as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, for a term of eighteen months.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:06:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:17:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member said that the Conservative Party is the great defender of tax breaks, yet one of the very first votes after Conservatives were put in opposition was on the tax decrease to Canada's middle class. It was hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars in tax relief for Canada's middle class, and they voted against that tax break.
The member now speaks about common sense and applying it to housing prices. Does the member not realize that it is more than just Ottawa? One could talk about municipality responsibilities, from zoning to building permits, or about the role that provinces play in housing. The best way for us to address the housing crunch today is by the different levels of government working together.
We know that the national government has put a great deal of money on the table. What would the member like to see the provinces and municipalities do to deal with the housing crisis in Canada today?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:33:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the issue of gas prices. In fact, I am seeing the Conservatives in opposition here in Ottawa taking a popular consumer-related issue and trying to score political points, albeit it is up to the opposition to do so.
In the prairie provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, all of which have Conservative governments, have any of those Conservative governments taken an initiative to reduce the price of a litre of gas in recent weeks?
An hon. member: Yes, Alberta has. All the provincial parliaments have.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:57:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the issue of what is happening around the world with regard to inflation, and possibly even the impact on oil prices, more specifically, because of what is taking place in Ukraine.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:10:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the theme of love, I have a love for our country, Canada. The government needs to provide many support programs, whether they are for seniors, such as the 10% increase for those 75 and older or the GIS increases or the many other types of programs that the government needs to provide to support real people in tangible ways.
I wonder if my colleague could continue his thoughts on how important it is to have revenues to provide these programs, and how the revenue comes from a multitude of sources, including oil and gas.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:25:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is in fact investing in charging stations in Canada. However, in good part, the debate is about the issue of inflation, and one of the things we have to take into consideration is the world dynamic. What is taking place, unfortunately in a very horrific fashion, can be witnessed every day on the news. We are seeing first-hand what is happening in Ukraine, and that has had a severe impact on the price of oil worldwide.
I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to that aspect. We are seeing oil increase as dramatically as it has been because of what is taking place in Europe.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:12:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the carbon tax. It is hard to say exactly where the Conservative Party is on the carbon tax. There was a time in which, speech after speech, Conservatives would stand up and say that they would get rid of the carbon tax completely. Then they had a flip-flop in position prior to the last election, where they told Canadians they did not want to get rid of the carbon tax and in fact wanted a new and improved carbon tax.
Can the member enlighten Canadians about what his personal position is on a price on pollution? Does he believe there should be a price on pollution?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:26:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts regarding the impact of the motion with respect to the province of Quebec. Is the Conservative Party trying, through this motion, to instruct the province of Quebec to reduce a tax?
I would be very much interested in his thoughts.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:31:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.
I want to take this opportunity to share some thoughts with members on my basic understanding. I can honestly say that the issue of the price on gas has always been of interest to me, since I was a 12-year-old young man pumping gas at Turbo for 51¢ a gallon. Members can do the math to figure out the cost per litre; it would have been a whole lot cheaper.
Ever since then, and this goes back to the 1970s, it has been about supply and demand. I can recall being at the station and there would be lineups of cars because of the fear that the earth was running out of fossil fuels. At least, that was one of the conspiracies that were talked about back then, when I was but a 12-year-old young man. Today we are again talking about the price of fuel. We have seen dramatic increases in fuel prices.
It is fair to say that we have to put it in the context of time. With respect to what is happening in Europe and the horrors that are taking place in Ukraine today, and we have to just turn on the news to get a very good sense of some of the horrors I am talking about, this House has unanimously recognized that what is happening in Ukraine is wrong. We have recongnized how offensive the Russian government, in particular President Putin, has been. At the end of the day, there has been a cost. We are starting to see that cost first-hand at our pumps as the world demand for oil is somewhat in turmoil today.
We have seen the government, in particular the minister of industry, come forward to talk about the Competition Bureau. The Competition Bureau has been notified in the strongest way to monitor the price of fuel and to act wherever it can on the whole issue of collusion and how oil companies might be jacking up the prices, which would affect all of our constituents. We are very much aware of the issue.
The Conservative Party, through an opposition motion, has taken it to another level and another step. The Conservatives are saying, let us reduce the tax on the price of a litre of gasoline. I have a bit of a problem with that. I understand the value of general revenues overall to our national governments and provincial governments. They are what enable us to provide the many different social programs that we have been providing throughout the years. The Conservative Party are saying to do this on a temporary basis. The Conservatives have not given any explanation of what they mean by temporary.
However, I posed a question earlier. We have Progressive Conservative or Conservative governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I asked which one of those Conservative governments has actually reduced the price of a litre of gas by reducing their tax on gasoline. To the best of my knowledge, that has not taken place. It has not taken place because, at the end of the day, I suspect the concern is the overall pricing of gasoline and what we can do to ensure gouging is not taking place at our pumps. The different levels of government do have a role to play. As I pointed out, for us it is through the Competition Bureau, which is monitoring the situation.
Inflation is something we take very seriously. If we look at the Liberal Party of Canada's agenda on the issue of inflation, from the 2015 election all the way to today, we will see that from day one we have been very progressive in our thinking and in being there to support Canadians.
In yesterday's debate I made reference to the tax breaks for Canada's middle class and pointed out how the Conservative Party voted against those tax breaks. However, for the first number of years, the focus of our government was on Canada's middle class and how we could expand the middle class. The results of the policy measures we had in those first few years had a profoundly positive impact. Canada's economy was doing exceptionally well in comparison to other countries around the word, in particular in comparison with the United States and European Union countries.
Then we hit the pandemic, and we saw Canadians come together once again to take on something that was happening around the world. The impact it had on our economy was quite severe. If we look at what we were able to accomplish by working with Canadians and the different types of support programs we brought in to support Canadians, whether it was the CERB or programs for direct support for seniors, people with disabilities, students and just vulnerable people in general, we were there and we had the backs of Canadians through that difficult time. It paid off, just like our first four years of dealing with the middle class did when we generated over a million jobs in those four years up to the pandemic.
If we compare Canada to other countries around the world, whether the U.S. or G20 countries, we did exceptionally well in comparison. Well over 100% of the jobs have returned from prepandemic times. I like to believe it had a lot to do with the government programs that were rolled out. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% to 85% of all new money spent on pandemic relief came from Ottawa to again support Canadians.
Inflation is something that has come up as a major issue over the last couple of years and the government continues to give more attention to it. With respect to making comparisons, we have to put that into perspective with what else is taking place in the world. The speaker before me said we should compare it to the United States. In Canada, our inflation rate is at 5.7% compared to the U.S., which is 7.5%. Then we were criticized as to why we were only comparing it to the U.S.
Let us look at the G20 countries. If we average out the inflation rate of the G20 countries in the world, it is over 6%, which is higher than Canada. For a government, that does not mean there is no room for improvement. There are things we have put in place and have taken action on to ensure we are contributing as much as possible in a positive way to our economy and the growth of our economy. We are trying to minimize some of the negative impacts of inflation. For the Conservative Party to give the impression that there is a huge black cloud over Canada because of inflation is somewhat misleading.
At the end of the day, the government policies we have put in place have done exceptionally well, especially if we compare ourselves to other countries in the world. That does not mean there is not more work to be done. There is a lot more work to be done, such as the presentation of the 2022-23 budget, which I know will be a true reflection of what Canadians believe is the right thing for this time and age.
1227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:42:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the comments that I made reference to was the fact that, as my colleague pointed out, we are both from the province of Manitoba with a Progressive Conservative government. We have Progressive Conservative governments in other jurisdictions here in Canada. It is interesting to see that none of them have picked up on this Conservative idea.
There is a fundamental difference I have with many of my Conservative friends, and that is that I understand and appreciate the true value of government expenditures to support Canadians at a time of need. What we have seen in policies is a government that continues to support our vulnerable, investing in our seniors, investing in infrastructure and so much more.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:45:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that I do not find difficult at all in terms of being a Liberal member of Parliament is being open, honest and transparent. There are a lot of wonderful things we have done as a government, so it is only natural to talk about those policy actions.
With respect to the issue of subsidies of fossil fuels, which often comes up as a matter of debate inside the chamber, one of the things that we need to recognize is that some of those subsidies go toward assistance for remote regions. I would like to think that all members would recognize the true value of that, at the very least for the short term.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that there are some individuals within the Department of Finance who are much more able-minded than I am in terms of taxation policies and how we could ultimately ensure there is a sense of fairness in taxation. There will be additional revenues coming in as a result, no doubt, of the higher oil prices that these corporations will have to pay. The details of it I do not know offhand.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:41:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to provide her thoughts with regard to the global situation. We have seen inflation around the world, and in comparison with other countries, whether it is the United States or other G20 countries, Canada is doing relatively well on fighting inflation. Could she provide her thoughts on that perspective?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 3:49:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier in the member's comments, she talked about the price of a litre of gasoline and somewhat implied that because we have things here in Canada, it should be a lot less expensive.
One of the ways in which some countries have been able to accomplish that is through the nationalization of a commodity. Right away, I started thinking that it did not sound like a Conservative Party approach to dealing with issues: to nationalize and purchase Esso and so forth.
I am wondering this. Are we starting to see a shift in some of the mentality coming from the Conservative Party in dealing with price controls, by saying that the Conservatives are interested in nationalizing in order to keep down prices?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 5:21:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the issues within the motion that I am sure Bloc members are concerned about is that the Conservatives' proposal could be perceived as something that would take away from provincial jurisdiction regarding the tax on gas in the province of Quebec.
Could the member add some further comment? The member made some reference to it, and I would be very much interested in how she perceives the motion from that perspective.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have two points of order that I would like to address.
I am rising on this particular point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on February 28, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, sponsored by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-237, I note that the bill would exempt Quebec from the national criteria and conditions set out for the Canada health transfer. Section 24 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act sets out certain conditions and criteria for payments to provinces for health transfers:
a Canada Health Transfer in the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) is to be provided to the provinces for the purposes of
(a) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, and the provisions relating to extra-billing and user charges.
Bill C-237 also seeks to amend the Canada Health Act to make a corresponding change to exempt Quebec from abiding by the criteria and conditions for a cash contribution from the government to the provinces for the purposes of providing health care services. The purpose of the Canada Health Act is to set out in section 4 of the act:
The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.
Section 5 of the Canada Health Act provides for cash contributions for each province in relation to the Canada health transfer.
Section 7 of the Canada Health Act sets out the criteria that a province must satisfy in order to receive a cash contribution. These criteria are more fully articulated in sections 8 to 12 in the act. Section 7 states:
In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:
(a) public administration;
(b) comprehensiveness;
(c) universality;
(d) portability; and
(e) accessibility.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
The provision of full cash contributions from the federal government to the provinces for health care services is tied to the ability of provinces to satisfy the conditions set out in section 7 of the Canada Health Act and section 24 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. The royal recommendation includes the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund and is tied to the purposes, terms, conditions and qualifications for the authorization of expenditures.
Since Bill C-237 seeks to remove the terms, conditions and qualifications of the statutory spending authority, I submit that a new royal recommendation would need to be obtained for the purposes set out for health transfers to provinces envisaged in Bill C-237.
Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to impose a new charge on the consolidated revenue fund, change the qualifications or alter the terms and conditions need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
On December 6, 2016, Speaker Regan noted:
On May 8, 2008, Speaker Milliken delivered a ruling on Bill C-490, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (application for supplement, retroactive payments and other amendments). While the bill clearly provided for increases in supplements, it also made changes in the manner in which people applied for benefits and the extent to which qualified persons could claim benefits retroactively. In Speaker Milliken’s view, this:
...would alter the conditions and qualifications that were originally placed on public spending on old age security payments when those benefits were approved by Parliament.
On December 6, 2016, the Speaker ruled on the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act, maternity benefits. The Speaker stated:
In this case, Bill C-243 does not impose any new charge on the public treasury but creates a new set of conditions, relating to the safety of their workplace for their pregnancy, under which pregnant women could have access to benefits related to their pregnancy from as early as 15 weeks before the birth of their child. Though the sponsor of the bill argues otherwise, the Chair is not convinced that the current act allows spending under the circumstances, in the manner, and for the purposes he proposes. This being a circumstance not yet envisioned in the Employment Insurance Act, it infringes on the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation that accompanied that act and therefore requires now a new royal recommendation. This remains the case, even if the total amount of benefits stays the same.
Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
A royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister of the Crown on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-237 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation is required and it has not been provided before the third-reading vote, the Speaker refuses to put the question at third reading and orders the bill discharged from the Order Paper.
I submit that this is the case before you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-237.
1027 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this particular point of order in response to your February 28, 2022, statement respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, illness, injury or quarantine, sponsored by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.
Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I suggest that the provision in the bill to extend sickness benefits to 52 weeks would seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund not authorized in statute. In instances when there is no existing statutory authority or an appropriation to cover the new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is in fact required.
The provisions of the bill amending the Employment Insurance Act would increase the maximum number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits. This increase in the number of weeks of benefits is authorized, once passed, by royal recommendation attached to the bill. The royal recommendation not only fixes the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of provisions subject to the royal recommendation.
Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to increase the length of a benefit, change the qualifications or alter the conditions for employment insurance benefits need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Let me draw to the attention of members a few germane rulings on this matter.
On April 22, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, removal of waiting period. The Speaker stated:
[T]he chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form...
On June 3, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, qualification for and entitlement to benefits. In the ruling, the Deputy Speaker stated:
On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265... the Chair had concluded that:
“It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program... would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.
Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.”
Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
A more recent and directly relevant case is to be found in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, additional regular benefits, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, restriction on eligibility, and another Act in response to COVID-19 on March 11, 2021. This bill sought, among other things, to increase the number of weeks of EI regular benefits available by up to 24 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims that were made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.
During the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed an amendment that attempted to increase the number of weeks of payments to an employment insurance claimant in the case of prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act.
In proposing the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment as inadmissible because it required a royal recommendation. The chair ruled:
Bill C-24 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the number of weeks paid under part 1 of that act under certain circumstances.
This amendment attempts to increase the number of weeks of payments to a claimant, in the case of prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772:
“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment as proposed requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
A royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister of the Crown on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-215 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that the royal recommendation is required, and it has not been provided before the third reading vote, the Speaker refuses to put the question at third reading and orders the bill discharged from the Order Paper.
I submit that this is the case before you with respect to Bill C-215.
Precedents clearly suggest that a bill or motion that seeks to incur new and distinct expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized require a royal recommendation.
987 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member brought forward this piece of legislation for the simple fact that I would never want to put a pass on being able to share some thoughts on the issue of charities and the important role they play in our society.
My colleague raised a question in terms of the cost. The parliamentary budget office is an apolitical office and the price it came back with was quite significantly more. I think we have an obligation to look at what our PBO says: over $750 million with the potential of a billion. That could be the actual cost if this legislation were to pass.
In listening to what the member had to say about the legislation and with what research I was able to do on the bill, I am not convinced that this is the best way for us to compliment our charities for the fine work that they have done over the years, continue to do today and, no doubt, will do well into the future.
One of the things that I have recognized as a parliamentarian for many years is the fact that Canada has to have some of the most generous people collectively in the entire world. If there is an immediate need in a community, city, municipality, province or territory, you name it, our constituents respond with open hearts and open wallets and purses. I have seen that on a wide variety of issues. We are very fortunate to have a population base that recognizes the importance of giving.
We see that taking place in many different forms. I would like to give a real tangible example. Let us say the PBO's numbers are accurate, because I believe they would be. When talking about those hundreds of millions of dollars, is that the best way we can invest potential tax dollars in terms of encouraging, promoting and supporting charitable organizations?
Every one of us is very much aware of what is taking place in Ukraine today, so I will use Ukraine as an example. The illegal, inhumane invasion that is taking place in Ukraine by President Putin is horrific. Tune into the news and one can see it first-hand on the TV, let alone imagining what the people are living through every day in Ukraine. I say that because one of the initiatives we took was on the issue of humanitarian aid. Even before Canada, as a government, came up with an approach in support of humanitarian aid, Canadians were already at the table. They were actually donating to charitable organizations that were ensuring there was humanitarian aid going to Ukraine. I remember it quite well when the federal government said that we are going to have, through the Red Cross, matching dollars.
That is why I say that it is a comparison. Take a look at what this legislation is doing and the amount of money that could potentially be redirected to see more benefit. In the Ukraine example, we allocated $10 million in terms of matching funds. It only took a matter of days before Canadians oversubscribed to that particular program, so the federal government increased it from $10 million to $30 million. I have not checked it recently in the last number of days, but I would not be surprised, if it were not there already, if it was very close, in terms of the contributions by Canadians.
That is what I mean when we take a look at charitable organizations, and there are many charitable organizations in every region of our country. Some of them have been hugely successful. Even during a pandemic, some have been successful. However, I concur that they have been hit hard as an industry during the pandemic, as other industries have also been hit hard.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that they will rebound. The real issue we should be discussing and debating today is how to maximize the benefits with what are the limited number of tax dollars that we have to deploy. When I look at this legislation, what I see is legislation that does not necessarily allow for an enhancement of the average person's ability to participate, or even provide that additional encouragement or be as universally accessible to some of the smaller organizations that are out there. Charities vary dramatically.
When we talk about health care needs in provinces, one can talk about the Grace Hospital Foundation that the member referenced. Check out their website. I did as the member was speaking. They have a wonderful donor's page with a list of different ways in which people can contribute.
We can talk about the Children's Hospital Foundations or we can go into the private area, such as the Ronald McDonald House Charities, which is across the country and which does an absolutely outstanding job as a corporation in providing the opportunity for Canadians, in particular, those from rural communities, to have a place when they are visiting cities because of a sick child. This is a wonderful organization.
Whether it is the larger charities that are there or it is the smaller charities, if we check with the Canada Revenue Agency, we can see a fairly lengthy list of non-profits and charities that are constantly looking for support. Going forward, I would like to think, in terms of dealing with charities, that, as parliamentarians, we would do what we can to support our charities, big or small.
As much as I can appreciate the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, a fellow Manitoban, bringing forward a piece of legislation from his perspective, I am not convinced that he has actually allowed for a wider subscription or if we are maximizing the potential limited dollars that come into the government that could go toward charities.
I am a big fan of charities, because I see the fine work they have done in our communities. I think of where there is potential growth, and I think of individuals like Sharon Redsky, who talks about indigenous charities and how the government could look at ways to support indigenous charities and the private sector, and that there is wonderful potential growth in that area. I am very much interested in ideas in that area.
We have the need for charities to assist people in many different ways, whether it is through food banks or direct funds to individuals. It varies greatly. I believe that, as I said at the very beginning of my comments, Canadians are very generous and we need to support and enhance that in whatever way we can.
We can do that through accountability and transparency and by working with organizations like the Canada Revenue Agency and the many different organizations that do not have CRA charity status but continue to do a lot of fine work throughout our country.
1156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
