- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Feb/12/24 4:10:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am presenting raises a concern about a proposal from the government and the Liberal Party in its last election platform to effectively politicize charitable status determinations. The Liberals proposed to deny charitable status to organizations with convictions regarding abortion that the Liberal Party does not like. This, petitioners say, would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on matters of conscience.
The government has previously used a values test to discriminate against worthy applicants to the Canada summer jobs program, denying funding to any organization for which the applicants are not willing to check a box endorsing political positions of the governing party. This proposal would amount to a second values test.
The petitioners say that charities and other non-profit organizations should not be discriminated against on the basis of political views or religious values and should not be subject to a politicized values test. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House and the government to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values or the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 6:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, next I am presenting a petition that raises concern about the second proposed values test we have seen from the current government. It was in the Liberals' 2021 platform. They propose to deny charitable status to any organizations that have views with respect to abortion that they consider dishonest. The charities act already contains a prohibition against dishonest conduct. However, this was targeted against those who hold views that the Liberal Party does not agree with. This proposal could jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on these things. It follows a similar values test that was associated with the Canada summer jobs program that we saw in the past, which was rescinded in response to significant public criticism.
The petitioners are calling on the House and the government to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without the imposition of another values test. They also want to see the government affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/23 10:16:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition from people who are concerned about a Liberal proposal in the Liberals Party's last election platform to politicize the charitable status determination.
The Liberal proposal was to withdraw charitable status from organizations where the people involved had views on abortion that the Liberal Party disagreed with. This proposal would jeopardize, the petitioners say, the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that happen to have a difference of opinion from the Liberal Party on these issues. It would hurt the many Canadians who depend on the work of these charitable organizations.
The petitioners say the government has previously used a values test to discriminate against worthy applicants to the Canada summer jobs program, denying any funding to organizations that were not willing to check a box endorsing the political positions of the governing party. The petitioners say that charities and other non-profit organizations should not be discriminated against on the basis of their political views or religious values and should not be subject to a politicized values test.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of those values and without the imposition of another values test. The petitioners also call on the government to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 11:23:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think a really simple thing for the government to do would be to say, as a policy statement, that it will work to identify all of the dollars that have been donated for this purpose and match those dollars insofar as it will set aside, in a fund for relief, the number of dollars equivalent to the amount it estimates has been contributed.
That formal calculation does not have to all be done in one or two days. If the government says that now as a policy commitment, then it means that over time the government can engage those charities, work to identify who is involved in relief and what dollars have been contributed and then disburse the funds at a later point.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:23:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the final petition I am presenting, similar to those presented by a number of colleagues, raises concerns about the desire of the Liberal government to weaponize charitable status determination and use it to target the Liberals' political opponents. Petitioners note that determinations about charitable status should be made on a politically and ideologically neutral basis. They should be made impartially, without preference for groups that have one particular political persuasion over another, yet the Liberal platform committed to politicize and weaponize charitable status determination, so this is a great concern for charities that might be directly affected and for the entire charitable sector, which wants to see more support from the government, not these kinds of divisive approaches—
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/22 2:12:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada faces tightening fiscal pressures, ballooning debt and inflation. Deficit and debt levels are so large that getting back to balance requires government not just to find efficiencies, but actually to do fewer things. The history of growth of government has not simply been one of government filling unmet needs; very often government has grown by displacing community, not-for-profit and other private organizations.
If we are going to reduce government expenditures while continuing to meet vital needs, Parliament needs to develop a strategy for revivifying strong communities and increasing the ability of extended families, charities, community organizations and the private sector to offer opportunity and support to people in vulnerable situations. We need to replace big government with strong community. Strong communities do not just meet individual needs; they also draw those involved into a sense of common endeavour and attach service provision to tangible, personal support.
Too often, the government measures success by how much it is spending in a particular area. This way of measuring accomplishment incentivizes government growth at the expense of community response and does not actually measure positive outcomes for individuals. The best way to reduce government spending is to replace government provision with something better.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak in support of Bill S-216, a bill that would do away with the direction and control requirements currently in Canadian charities law.
As I speak to this bill, I would like to recognize the excellent work of the sponsor in this place, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and also to recognize the great work of Senator Omidvar, who has put this bill forward in the other place and championed it multiple times. I was very pleased to see at the beginning of this Parliament how the Senate worked very quickly to get a number of private members' bills that had already passed in the last Parliament quickly into this House, so that we could move them forward. I was very pleased to see the work of Senator Omidvar and the whole Senate, as well as my colleague in this place, on this important issue.
Direction and control requirements: What are we talking about? Canadians, I think, are familiar with the concept of charitable status, the fact that organizations that have been identified and qualified as charities have certain privileges in terms of being able to issue tax receipts. We broadly recognize that it is in the public interest to provide charitable status to organizations that are doing charitable work to try to support the most vulnerable, to try to support international development and to provide various kinds of services to individuals.
I see great value in charitable work, not only because of the benefits that are provided to communities through the provision of that charitable service but also through the way in which charitable organizations draw individuals into the provision of those services directly, that they create a bond within communities between those who are working to provide services and those who are benefiting from the services that are provided.
The government has to have rules around who qualifies for charitable status and who does not. That much is fairly obvious, but the government should seek to make these rules as reasonable and accessible as possible, and to minimize red tape in the application of these rules. I was very proud of the fact that, while in government, the Conservatives had a strategy around reducing red tape in the private sector. We recognized that for private business, red tape was a major impediment, and we worked to measure and reduce the overall level of red tape.
Canada needs an intentional red tape reduction strategy for not-for-profit organizations as well. We need to recognize that not-for-profit organizations that are partnering with the government, trying to access government funding, provide services or simply benefit from charitable status, often have similar concerns about the level of red tape they face and how it limits their ability to do good work, helping to strengthen and fortify our communities.
Direction and control is one example of the kind of onerous red tape that charitable organizations have to deal with. I know the member who is putting forward this bill came to it as the shadow minister for revenue for our party in the last Parliament. My point in accessing this was as the shadow minister for international development. Direction and control, in particular, is a major concern for international development organizations.
How does direction and control work? It is simply the requirement that charitable organizations have direction and control over charitable activities, that they cannot dispense money to other organizations that are not charitable organizations if the activity that is under that provision is not fully under the direction and control of that organization. It creates administrative challenges when different organizations are trying to partner together to do good work that is clearly aligned with the charitable purpose of the organization that is doing the work, because it requires the charitable organization to be fully directing and controlling that activity. That creates administrative challenges. In particular, though, it is an issue in international development or when charitable organizations are trying to work with vulnerable communities.
The best practices in international development are really focused on empowerment. It is not about having donor countries controlling the activity that is happening in another country. Rather, it is about that donor coming alongside, partnering with but seeking to support, empower and give control to the organization that is on the ground, the people who are responsible for their own development. Too often, the discourse around international development has been about the external saviour coming in and providing the solutions, when, in reality, we should be thinking in terms of people in developing countries, those who are in the act of trying to strengthen their position economically and in other ways. They are the heroes of the story. Those who are coming alongside to help and support are merely providing an assist, a supporting function, for the central role held by the people who are involved in the struggle to pursue their own development.
When we have policies like direction and control, which say the control has to be in the hands of a Canadian charitable organization, this perpetuates a kind of colonial structure around development, whereby the control cannot be with people on the ground; the control is with the external organization providing assistance. A problem in international development is something that I have heard repeatedly from Canadian international development sectors, who say they want to see us address the issue of direction and control.
However, it is not just a problem with international development. We can think of this as being a particular problem with charitable organizations that are partnering with minority communities, indigenous communities and others. The requirement for direction and control is also colonial in that context, because it requires that the charitable organization be directing and controlling in some sense the work of organizations that may be coming from communities themselves. Unless those communities have an actual organization that has charitable status, their ability to take control of the process is limited. There is an administrative problem, but in particular, in this sense, there is a problem with the colonial message that is sent through the structures in place in terms of direction and control.
We have been working on this issue for a number of years. I have asked questions on it in the House. I have raised the issue, and many other members have done the same. One of the points of frustration is that we talk about the importance of charities, but there does not seem to be a home in government for charities. We do not have a minister responsible for charities, so when these questions come up there is sometimes a bit of back and forth. There is the engagement of the international development, revenue and finance departments, but we do not have a real hub in government for charitable activities.
That is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. To have a broader strategy around reducing red tape for charitable organizations, we need a structure within government that is a hub for policy and strategy around promoting and empowering charitable organizations and addressing the challenges they face. Notwithstanding those issues, we were very pleased to see that the government at least took a step in the last budget, which actually mentioned Bill S-216 and acknowledged the problem with direction and control. The foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament unanimously endorsed a direct recommendation asking the government to do away with the direction and control requirements and replace them with a new accountability structure. The foreign affairs committee specifically used the word “colonial” to describe the existing requirements.
Finally, for the first time in this budget, we have acknowledgement by the government that yes, we do have a problem with direction and control, and it has to be remedied. The budget said that the remedy the government would put forward would be in the spirit of Bill S-216, but there continues to be concern about that language, the spirit of S-216 instead of the text of S-216. Effectively, the text of S-216, in terms of replacing direction and control with an alternative accountability framework, was built up through extensive engagement and consultation with the charitable sector. It involves a strong structure of accountability whereby charities are accountable for the activities they fund but do not have to provide that direction and control.
There are continuing concerns among many in the charitable sector about the approach being taken by the government. They say the government has acknowledged the problem, but they ask whether it has actually brought forward the solution we need to see and whether it is prepared to solve the problem. To do so could and should have involved the full adoption of the text of Bill S-216 into the budget implementation act. We did not see that, so there continue to be concerns about whether the new framework will introduce a substantial level of red tape, so that we are replacing one flawed framework with another flawed framework.
The debate on Bill S-216 will continue and, in the absence of complete action by the government, the bill can and should go forward. I am hopeful that the government will take further steps from the budget, recognize that the charitable sector needs to be continuously consulted throughout this process, recognize that there is more work to do to ensure that not just the spirit but the letter and the fullest of the ideas that are present in S-216 are reflected in government policy going forward in order to empower charitable organizations, and address these problems of residual colonialism in our charitable laws.
1627 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with respect to the budget implementation act, I know one issue that I have been following very closely is the issue of direction and control. Unreasonable regulations exist in the context of charities law. The budget finally recognized there was a problem with this, but at the same time there are some concerns about whether the solution offered is adequate.
We need to fix these regulations. We need to work across party lines to get this done, because right now they are piling millions of dollars' worth of red tape every year onto charitable organizations. I wonder if my colleague has a comment about the need to reform these regulations and remove red tape so that charities can do their work unencumbered.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly the requirement for alignment with a charitable purpose is very important. It is also important that we do more to address the red tape that charitable organizations face across the board. I was very proud of the work done by the previous Conservative government around red tape reduction for business. I think we need a similar, broad red-tape reduction initiative around charities saying what all the areas of red tape are that charitable organizations have to deal with and finding ways of achieving the same objectives and necessary oversight that is required, while minimizing red tape and removing direction and control requirements. Doing so in a full and complete way, in alignment with the spirit and the text of Bill S-216 would, I think, go a very long way. Of course, the budget states the general policy direction of the government but the rubber really hits the road when we see the budget implementation act.
I wonder if the member could just share with the House when we will see the changes that are referenced in the budget with respect to direction and control. When will we see them in a budget implementation act, what can we expect and when can we expect them?
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:34:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns about a commitment made in the Liberal 2021 election platform. We know the Liberals do not always keep their election commitments, and hopefully in this case they will not.
The petition is with respect to their wanting to politicize charitable status determinations by denying charitable status to organizations with a pro-life perspective. This could apply to hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do great work serving our communities. This proposal in the Liberal platform amounts to the application of a values test to charitable status, similar to what we saw with the values test that was applied to the Canada summer jobs program. It would politicize charitable status determinations and put the great work that many charities do at risk.
The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of those views and without the imposition of another values test, as well as to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 1:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights concern about a Liberal Party election platform commitment that would effectively politicize charitable status determinations. Existing charities law already prohibits dishonest conduct, but the Liberals' commitment, highlighted here, is particularly to target the alleged dishonest behaviour of those with political views that differ from theirs.
In particular, it seeks to deny charitable status to organizations that have a pro-life viewpoint and that support women in a crisis pregnancy situation. Their proposal would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on this issue as a matter of conviction. This is very similar to what we saw with respect to the values test that was associated with the Canada summer jobs program the Liberals tried to put in place previously.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of the charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values, and without the imposition of a values test. They also call on the government to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 11:34:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it needs to be all of the above and Canada needs to get in the energy export game to Europe.
Many Ukrainian Canadian organizations are doing incredible work confronting the humanitarian crisis in the Ukraine. The government's matching program only applies to the Red Cross. We have seen previously how, such as in the case of Lebanon, the government's matching program excludes Canadian charities with strong, on-the-ground experience. This is a missed opportunity for those charities.
Will the government expand and broaden its matching program to at least include established organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Catholic Near East Welfare Association?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, direction and control regulations are a problem for the charitable sector in Canada. Direction and control regulations require that when charities are involved in activities, those activities are to be under the full direction and control of those charitable organizations. It is right that there be rules and restrictions around charitable organizations, that they be accountable for the dollars given to them and that they align their activities with their charitable purpose in accordance with the rules that exist, but this requirement of direction and control is not necessary to ensure accountability. We can have a framework that requires accountability without the restrictiveness of direction and control.
The effect of direction and control is particularly strongly felt in the area of international development because it really limits the ability of charities to form constructive partnerships with organizations in other parts of the world. The best practice in international development is to see the people in developing countries as the heroes of their own story and for donors and external organizations to be supportive, not to try to control and manage all aspects of the development process or of those communities' lives. Direction and control regulations therefore run totally counter to the best practice of self-determination in development. Effectively, they force the kind of ongoing neo-colonial view that many organizations, as well as individuals in developing countries, want to move away from.
In response to these concerns that come up repeatedly from various organizations that work in international development, and that are concerns for other charitable organizations as well, Senator Omidvar put forward a private member's bill that addresses this by moving away from direction and control while still ensuring accountability in accordance with a charitable purpose. This bill passed unanimously in the last Parliament and it passed in the same form unanimously in this Parliament. It now stands in the name of my friend, whose riding I cannot remember, in the House.
We asked the government, on February 14, what its position was on the bill. We asked three questions about direction and control, and I am following up on those questions because, unfortunately, the answers seemed to suggest the minister was not even aware of the issue. I am hopeful that maybe there was some mistake in the process of response and that we can get some clarity tonight about where the government is at on this direction and control issue.
I say to the government that this is not a partisan issue. Fixing direction and control should be a win-win. My colleague who put forward this bill had an NDP member second it as a demonstration of cross-party support. I believe that all opposition parties have been clear already about their support for this bill, so a majority of the House wants to see this bill pass, but sometimes the challenge with private members' bills is that we run out of time. We have a good idea people agree on, but it does not make it through the process quickly enough.
I would like to ask the government what its position is on Bill S-216, the direction and control bill that has now twice passed the Senate unanimously. If the government supports the bill, is it prepared to work with us to try to move this process along so that this Parliament can be the one that finally gets it done? I have worked on other issues, such as organ harvesting and trafficking, for example, where we have a good bill that everyone agrees on and yet it takes over 10 years and we are still talking about it because the clock has run out in every Parliament. I hope that will not happen in this case.
627 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
