SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:19:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite clearly understands the importance of making vital investments in our national defence to get up to our NATO commitments. It is also clear from the debate today that the government's partners in the NDP simply do not. They have an ideological opposition to making the investments that are required in defence and they do not understand that investing in our security is fundamental to anything else that we want to do as a country. I asked the foreign affairs minister at committee whether the agreement with the NDP involved any commitments with respect to foreign policy or security policy, and she said no. That is good news, I think. It also shows that the NDP is not as engaged in these issues as it should be. However, then I asked the minister if she was confident that the agreement between the government and the NDP would hold if the government chose to increase defence spending, and she could not answer that question. I am concerned that the NDP agreement with the government will limit our capacity to invest in defence spending and will hold the government back in doing the things that it needs to do. Does the member share my concerns that the partners that the government has in the NDP are going to put those required investments at risk?

227 words

Context: House Hansard - 53 - Apr/5/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/5/22 6:18:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about some of the challenges we have seen with donation matching programs launched by governments in response to crises around the world. When there is some singular event causing massive destruction elsewhere in the world, one way that governments have provided assistance is through matching programs that match private donations up to a certain amount. I believe that, in general, matching programs are a very positive vehicle. They are a mechanism for encouraging private participation in humanitarian work and promoting the habit of private giving in general. Because matching programs are often time-limited, they can encourage individuals to make their donations in a timely way. These programs also reflect the important idea that governments and private actors can and should work together to advance international humanitarian objectives. However, there is one significant problem with matching programs. The risk is that, by offering matching opportunities to some organizations and not others, the government uses its financial and rhetorical power to direct private donations in a particular direction. People naturally want to give to organizations that are beneficiaries of a matching program, so that their contributions will be effectively doubled. Promoting donations to these organizations in particular is part of the point of matching programs. However, if people who might otherwise give to unmatched organizations instead choose to direct their donations to organizations that are the recipients of matching programs, these organizations who do not benefit from matching programs end up receiving less private money than they would otherwise. The government is picking winners and losers among humanitarian and development organizations when they construct matching programs that apply to a certain narrow set of organizations and not to others. This perverse outcome is something that should be avoided. I believe that when it comes to matching programs, the government should always cast a very wide net. The government could, for instance, establish a policy of matching donations to all charitable organizations that are responding to a particular crisis. In particular, it has seemed to be the tendency of government to launch matching programs with big, established multilateral humanitarian organizations with which the government has long-established relationships. This is the easy thing for government to do and it may also entail less of certain kinds of risks. As the saying goes, nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. The problem is that there may be other good reasons to prefer matching programs with organizations other than big, well-known multilaterals. In many cases, smaller, local charities will have particular competencies and connections on the ground. The organizations best positioned to provide humanitarian relief in Lebanon may not be the same as the organizations best positioned to provide humanitarian relief in Ukraine. The easy way out for government is simply to work with big organizations that have some capacity to operate everywhere, but matching donations to smaller, local outfits may actually have a greater, real impact. These organizations may also be leaner and more efficient. A focus on large, multilaterals ignores the potential of uniquely Canadian-based and affiliated organizations, in some cases led by diaspora community members with particular connections abroad and in other cases simply Canadian organizations that are leveraging Canadian innovation and involvement. Imagine the experience of someone who starts a local Canadian not-for-profit organization, has a strong base of support here and suddenly finds that they are losing donations at a critical time because Canadians are instead choosing to donate to multilaterals that are benefiting from a matching program from their own government. This is not right and it is not fair. Now I have also seen how government matching programs often miss Christian and other faith-based organizations that are doing good development work in the service of all. A secular government should be neutral on questions of religion, which means providing matching opportunities for faith-based and non-faith-based organizations alike. This would be a neutral position, but by avoiding faith-based organizations in the matching program, the government is not taking a neutral position. My initial question was about matching in the case of Ukraine. Notably, in the case of Ukraine, Canadians have been extremely generous, donating far above the allotment for the matching program, and the level of generosity in this case means that the perverse outcomes of only matching donations to one organization may likely be less of a factor, but this is a larger policy issue that needs to be addressed by government and I hope it will be.

759 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 53 - Apr/5/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/5/22 6:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her response. She did confirm the policy that I identified, and it is one that I think should be revisited. That is the policy of emphasizing partnerships with large multilaterals. It is not that working with these organizations is unimportant, but including small Canadian diaspora-led organizations as well as larger Canadian diaspora-led organizations can be very effective as well. When we have matching programs, we should be careful that we are not directing away from those organizations toward a small set of chosen partners. I would quibble a bit. The parliamentary secretary talked about how the benefits of these large multilaterals are that they move quickly and that they can work with organizations that are local on the ground. I would say that working directly with organizations that have already established local partnerships can often allow for a quicker response, and fewer resources are lost in the process of transferring them to the multilaterals and then to those small organizations. I know this is not something that can be changed on the fly, but I would encourage the government to look at this issue.

194 words

All Topics