- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Apr/15/24 3:35:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious to everybody, except this member, that this is a serious and substantial matter worthy of urgent debate in the House of Commons.
I want to assure all members that we have, at the earliest opportunity following this weekend's events, and in the most efficient way possible, put a motion before the House to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I hope the motion will pass as quickly as possible so that we can finally send a message that the IRGC should be listed as a terrorist organization. I hope that, after six years of delay, the government will finally do it. It has been six years, and on all of the events I have described over those six years, the government is out of excuses. It is time to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and shut down its operations in Canada.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise a point of order at the earliest possible opportunity regarding the response I received to Question No. 2155, if you would allow me to briefly explain my concern about its accuracy and completeness.
My question was respecting development assistance projects in Israel and Palestinian territories and projects aimed at supporting Palestinian refugees in other countries. I asked for information about all projects since 2016. That includes all the organizations involved in delivering a project, with the clear implication of both implementing and sub-implementing partners. The initial response describes the fact that there are implementing and sub-implementing partners, which are screened. It says that all funding goes through trusted partner organizations.
Subsequently, in reviewing the list of projects, I found that none of the projects mentioned identify sub-implementing partners. They speak about the large organizations; for instance, they speak about $100 million going to UNRWA. However, they do not identify sub-implementing partners. The implication is that either there are none or the government did not wish to provide that information, despite the clear ordering of that information as part of Question No. 2155. That makes the response inaccurate and incomplete.
I do not know if the government is intentionally trying to hide information about the development assistance in this regard. However, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the government needs to provide a complete and accurate response.
236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 11:42:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure working with the member on certain issues. I think she would agree that we agree sometimes and disagree other times.
This is an important topic we are debating tonight. I want to come back to something she raised at the beginning of her speech, which is the Wagner Group and the motion she put before the House regarding it being listed as a terrorist organization.
I wonder if she can share a bit more about how she sees the agenda of the Russian government, in Africa with the Wagner Group and in other ways, contributing to destabilization and conflict, and why it is so important that the government follow through on the motion of the House and list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization, a point we agree on.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 6:50:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are no surprises in that non-answer, unfortunately.
The parliamentary secretary, ironically, cites a number of instances of groups that were listed by the previous Conservative government, and then expects to be congratulated, I suppose, for the fact that the government has allowed these terrorist organizations listed by Conservatives to remain on the list, but has not listed additional organizations.
A while back the House passed a motion on the listing of the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, and the government got that done within two months, yet it has been five years, and the parliamentary secretary will not list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
She cites various individuals. Again, as I already pointed out, when individuals are sanctioned and not the organization, the organization is allowed to continue to operate here in Canada. The parliamentary secretary will not answer the basic question. Why is the government intent on allowing the IRGC to continue their operations in Canada?
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 11:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to underline that nothing in my speech was to take away from the great work that the Red Cross is doing in eastern Canada or in other parts of the world. Of course, it does have partnerships with local organizations, and I hope it will do its best to engage some of those local organizations.
However, fundamentally, it does not change the point that there are many other worthy organizations that are not getting this matching support and, essentially, it puts the Red Cross in the position of being the disbursers of public money, which is a role that we would normally conceive of as being the government's. We should work to provide that support in the form of matching to all of the organizations that are doing good work, not because the organizations being matched are not worthy of it but because there are other organizations that are worthy of it as well.
I know my constituents will be actively involved in this relief effort and I would like to see all of the donations that my constituents make matched, regardless of the organizations they give to.
193 words
- 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
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been advocating for a very long time on the issue of direction and control. Direction and control are regulations that severely limit the ability of the charitable sector to do its job. They require that any charitable activities be fully under the direction and control of the charitable organization. This creates problems and needless red tape for organizations that are operating in Canada. It is a particular problem for organizations that are operating internationally.
As many members know and understand, the best practice of international development is when organizations in Canada are able to empower and support those who are acting in their own countries to support development, which really recognizes that the people who are in the process of doing the developing are the heroes of their own story, and the role of international organizations is merely a supporting role for those who are doing that important work. However, direction and control regulations require effectively that those organizations operating overseas be fully under the direction and control of that Canadian organization insofar as it wishes to maintain its charitable status. Not only does this create inefficiencies, needless bureaucratic red tape and millions of dollars in lawyer fees that charitable organizations have to pay every year, it also perpetuates this kind of colonial structure of donor control and the requirement for the foreign organization to be in control of the development activity that is happening on the ground.
We have been advocating for a long time for reforms to direction and control. It was a commitment in the last Conservative platform to make these reforms. It also reflected a unanimous recommendation coming out of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament, which directly called out these regulations for being neocolonial in nature. I want to recognize the work of the Senator Omidvar, who put forward a Senate public bill on this, Bill S-216. That bill passed in the Senate twice and is currently being sponsored by my colleague in this House.
With that in mind, I raised the question on this issue in the House a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I did not get a very good answer. I was cautiously pleased to see a reference to direction and control on page 195 of budget 2022, which is the first time the government has acknowledged that direction and control regulations are a problem and need to be reformed. The section references Bill S-216 directly, and that the government intends, in its budget implementation acts, to implement the spirit of that bill.
We cannot assume that the fix will fully address the issues. We cannot assume until we have seen those proposed changes what the actual change in the nature of the regulations will be, because Bill S-216 removes the “own activities” requirement and replaces it with an accountability requirement for charitable organizations. The budget does not reference removing the “own activities” requirement. It simply references trying to facilitate mechanisms for easier transfers. It claims it will implement the spirit of Bill S-216, but it does not say it will implement the letter of the bill. As we have seen before, the devil can be in the details, so although the development sector and charitable organizations across Canada are very pleased to finally see at least a recognition of the problem, we are far from certain about whether the solution will be adequate.
Therefore, I would like to hear more from the government on this, because the reference is there in the budget, but it is lacking in clarity. When can we expect the government to implement these changes? Is the government prepared to actually implement the changes in Bill S-216, removing the “own activities” requirement and replacing it with an accountability mechanism? Is the government prepared to work with the charitable sector, including those who work in international development and members of other parties, to ensure that we get it right? It would sure be a shame to get people's hopes up and then not deliver the fix that is required.
690 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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
