2009-02-06

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my party's industry, science and technology critic, it is my honour to say a few words about Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations. This bill, you will remember, originated with the Liberal Party almost a decade ago in order to review the regulations and the governance rules of not-for-profit organizations.
As we know, this bill specifically concerns not-for-profit organizations; it would replace part II of the Canada Corporations Act and it would apply to some entities currently covered by part III of that act.
The bill would also provide for continuance of companies that were created by special acts of Parliament and subject to part IV of the Canada Corporations Act and, finally, it would repeal the Canada Corporations Act.
Bill C-4 was developed as a result of the previous Liberal government's commitment to the voluntary sector task force initiated in 1999 to modernize the governance of the non-profit sector. It proposes substantial changes to regulations going back to 1917.
Many of the corporate governance provisions, as well as many other provisions found in the bill, are modelled on the corporate governance provisions contained in the Canada Business Corporations Act, the statute that regulates federally incorporated for profit corporations; that is business corporations.
Generally speaking, this legislation is seeking to provide a framework for the modern corporate governance of some 20,000 federally incorporated not-for-profit organizations that include community, ecological, cultural and religious organizations as well as national charities and many others.
Since July 2000, and then again in March 2002, Industry Canada has shared its consultation reports while organizing new consultations across the country in order to discuss different reform alternatives.
Following the second round of consultations Industry Canada released a paper entitled “Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law”. Two years later the Liberal Party introduced the first version of the non-profit corporations act as Bill C-21. The bill passed second reading, underwent three committee meetings, but did not reach a final vote before the election call in late 2005.
Under the Conservative government, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-62 but only passed first reading before being lost in the September 2008 election call. 
Bills C-62 and C-4 certainly do contain amendments to Bill C-21, as well as the definition of a “soliciting corporation”.
We are all aware that soliciting corporations receive part or all of their funding from public sources, whether by fundraising or other means.
I should point out that Bill C-4 is flexible enough to address the needs of not-for-profit organizations of all sizes effectively by introducing clearer rules and both accountability and transparency for the entire not-for-profit sector. 
Overall, the bill introduces significant changes with respect to financial accountability, the rights and responsibilities of directors and officers, and the rights of members.
If passed, Bill C-4 will implement new rules on financial reporting based on the organization's annual revenue and sources of funding, new rules on standard of care for directors and new rules for direction liability, new rules that permit written resolutions in place of meetings and allow corporations to avail themselves of technological advances, also new rules permitting members access to certain information to monitor director activities and enforce their rights within the organization and a streamlining of the incorporation process and a reduction in the regulatory burden for the not for profit sector.
In other words, with this new bill, the sometimes endless and often complicated incorporation process will be streamlined and simplified. 
Organizations will be able to fill out electronic forms and pay fees on line, and the current requirement that applications for incorporation are subject to a departmental review will be eliminated. This will make the incorporation process easier and faster.
The new office of director of corporations would replace the current system of ministerial review and discretion. This director would have administrative and regulatory functions and would be able to issue incorporation, amalgamation or dissolution certificates, investigate and make enquiries about compliance and access key corporate documents like membership lists and financial statements.
As stated, the new bill would also make significant changes in terms of financial accountability, the rights and responsibilities of directors, officers and members' rights. Improving transparency and accountability is a major objective of the new legislation through new rules on financial review and disclosure. All non-profits will need to make their financial statements available to their members, directors and officers in addition to the director appointed under the act.
Directors of soliciting organizations will have to make their records available to the public. This legislation will also improve financial accountability with new accounting audit rules. These rules recognize that not-for-profit organizations have different levels of revenue and different funding sources. All soliciting and non-soliciting organizations classified under the new legislation as having “significant” revenue will be subject to an accounting audit. 
I want to point out that the stakeholders targeted by this new legislation supported the proposed changes during initial consultations, as did the witnesses who testified during the earlier committee meetings. 
Strong support was given for the proposed reforms dealing with standard of care, due diligence defence, indemnification and insurance and limited liability of directors and officers. Some of the areas where there was less unanimity between those consulted included clarification of the rules governing non-for-profit corporations versus registered charities, whether there should be classifications under the bill that would stipulate different requirements based on the type of not-for-profit organization, whether it should be necessary to file bylaws and, finally, the level of auditing required.
The committee can certainly examine these points in detail. In the meantime, speaking as a person who has been involved in not-for-profit organizations, I must say that I support this legislation wholeheartedly.
I want to emphasize that my Liberal colleagues and I are eager to work with our colleagues on the government side to pass this important legislation, which has been a long time coming.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to hear my hon. colleague who is one of the giants of science and one of the great explorers of our country.
What are my hon. friend's views on what the government should have done in the budget and what it still can do to maximize investments in research and development?
We know the value added benefits for research and development in our country are enormous to allow us to capitalize on the future needs of our country and the great challenges that face us in the world, not only the environmental challenges but the social challenges.
 I would like to know not only what investments should be made, but how they should be made and how we can maximize the interplay between the research and development units and post-secondary institutions and the private sector within our country and between countries.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is certain that in this time of economic crisis we must put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of science, research and innovation for the future of our country.
The Liberal Party, back in the 1990s, under Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin, had the foresight to put into place some extremely important programs, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada research chairs, Genome Canada, which we have spoke of lately, and also the very important program to fund the indirect costs of university research. Those programs were far-sighted, at a difficult financial time, I might add, in the mid-1990s, and have been acclaimed by our universities and our research hospitals as providing that necessary support from the federal government to re-invigorate research in our country.
As we have seen in the past week or so, a number of these organizations, such as Genome Canada and, more recent, the three national funding research councils and our scientists have all decried that the programs I just mentioned are not continuing to receive steady support, particularly at this time when it is crucial for us to continue to build on that capability.
 I hope and I pray that the government will take note of this and realize that science is something that we must support for the long run. It is not something that we address on an ad hoc basis when we decide it is time to make a small injection to turn on the tap and turn it off. We must realize the importance of steadily supporting scientific research in our country.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we understand the need for bringing our corporations act into the 21st century. However, we are rather disappointed that a fairly straightforward six page present act has been expanded into a rather bloated a one hundred and seventy page document. We believe there will be need for amendments to the bill.
We are particularly concerned that the bill would increase the record keeping and regulatory burden on non-profits, especially the small non-profits. It seems to treat the average legion social club the same as it treats the Red Cross of Canada. We are concerned that the record keeping requirements will become onerous.
 We hope there will be some trimming down and some thought given to that sort of thing. What we seem to have is a 170 page expansion and legalization of Robert's Rules of Order.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the member's comments. It is a large document, but the consensus that has been reached in consultations over a period of six to eight years is this is in fact a document that streamlines and clarifies the responsibilities and the processes involved with being a non-profit corporation.
However, I take note of the member's comments. It would be important to ensure that small organizations would not burdened to the same extent as larger organizations. I welcome the member's input to the committee discussions that will take place in due course to move toward a ratification of the bill.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain scientists of the calibre that my colleague just mentioned, and others in our country, we have to be able to cultivate them from the very beginning.
Senator Lillian Dyck, from the other place, has started, with her friends, a way for children to have access to science and to have it available to them in a fun way. This is extremely important, as we know, to enable children to have exposure to science, for them to be inspired by science, and for them to be interested in science. I hope that for some of them at least they would be able to follow a course of action professionally later on in life that follows one of the sciences.
I would like to ask my hon. friend, while this is not in the realm of the federal government, does he not think that the federal government has an enormous opportunity to work with the provincial ministries of education to enable children to have access to science, to implement scientific programs that expose children to science in a fun way? In doing so, we would begin to cultivate that fertile imagination of children and inspire them. We would involve them and include them in the great world of science and the wonderful world of discovery that awaits all of us.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very important comments. Although, as he points out, education is a provincial matter, I think there is federal involvement and a leadership role that can be assumed by the federal government.
 In the particular area that I have been involved in my professional life, which is the space business, I have had the opportunity to interact with the provinces during the past 25 years. In their primary and secondary level curriculum, they have included some modules that deal with space and astronomy. There is no question about it, those are areas that stimulate the minds of young people and perhaps in some cases may make them think about science as being a potential career of their own.
I think the federal government can work with provincial jurisdictions to create a more positive scientific culture in our primary and secondary schools for the good of the country.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should have asked my friend a question regarding astrophysics. Canada is the third leading country in the world in investments in astrophysics. In fact, our country, and this is a great news story, actually punches well above its weight. There are opportunities right now in investments in the large Array telescope that we have and in the post-Hubble telescope to make investments which have huge opportunities and implications for us, not only in astrophysics but in the applied sciences.
My friend is an engineer by trade, an electrical engineer if memory serves me correctly. Does he not think that our government should make a concerted effort to support our astronomers and to support astrophysics because we know that the investment in astrophysics results in a 7 to 10 times to 1 investment in the monies that are put in?
 Really, this is a great news story for Canada and Canadians because our astrophysicists punch well above their weight. Canada is the third leading country in the world in our capabilities and discoveries in this important area.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is true, Canada does punch above its weight in astronomy. I think it raises a very fundamental point, the importance of supporting not only applied science in this country but also fundamental science. For those who do not know it, our astronomers are the pride of this country in terms of published articles and discoveries. That is something I hope more Canadians will become aware of.
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this the first time I have risen to speak since the session began, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Shefford for trusting in me for the third time to defend their interests in Ottawa.
For several years, a number of representatives of not-for-profit corporations have been pressing to have the Canada Corporations Act modernized. In the past decade, numerous people have taken part in consultations, while others have made written submissions to Industry Canada calling for rapid amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. In recent years, some people have expressed concern that the Canada Corporations Act is out of date and no longer meets the needs of the not-for-profit sector. Stakeholders have publicly called for reform of the act and, in 1999, the task force on the voluntary sector, which was created by the federal government, called for improvements to the regulatory framework governing this sector. Industry Canada's proposal to modernize the Canada Corporations Act forms part of the task force's plan.
In July 2000, Industry Canada released a consultation paper entitled Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law. After releasing this document, the department held a series of round tables in cities across the country to look at the ideas in the document and consider various legislative options. The government then made concrete proposals to reform the not-for-profit corporations legislation.
On November 15, 2004, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-21, which never reached second reading. On June 13, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-62, which was similar to what the Liberals had tabled. With the hasty election call last September, this bill died on the order paper. On December 3, 2008, a similar bill was introduced for first reading by the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism). Once again, it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on December 4. Finally, the Conservative minister introduced the same legislation on January 28 as Bill C-4.
Since 2004, both Liberal and Conservative governments introduced various bills that all died on the order paper. In spite of everything, it is quite clear that there is a common desire on both sides of the House to modernize the Canada Corporations Act, especially since the bills introduced by previous governments have all been very similar.
To briefly summarize Bill C-4, its primary aim is to propose new legislation on not-for-profit corporations that would establish a more modern and transparent framework for such organizations. The operational framework for not-for-profit corporations would be similar to corporate governance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The new act would gradually repeal the Canada Corporations Act and would replace parts II, III and IV of that act.
According to the minister herself, Bill C-4 will cut administrative costs facing not-for-profit corporations and will strengthen and clarify the governance rules that apply to these corporations. In more concrete terms, this bill will simplify the incorporation of not-for-profit corporations; clarify the rights and responsibilities of directors; establish defences for directors and officers in the event of liability; provide members with increased rights to contribute to the governance of their corporation; and establish a better mechanism to oversee the corporations' accounts. 
Although the bill is complex, the new framework that will govern not-for-profit corporations should considerably simplify and clarify the role of these corporations in our society, both for their members and directors and for the general public. 
It is exceedingly clear that extensive changes must be made to the Canada Corporations Act. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle underlying the bill. However, it is evident that some aspects of the bill must be examined in committee.
The Bloc Québécois supports this bill for a number of reasons. First of all, the process for establishing a not-for-profit will be considerably streamlined and much more transparent.
 The act currently requires not-for-profit corporations to keep detailed accounts of their activities but does not require disclosure of these accounts. Bill C-4 requires not-for-profits to make their financial records available to their members, directors and officers, as well as to the Director. This will permit directors and officers to better manage and supervise the corporation, to monitor the financial situation of the organization between annual meetings and to ensure that funds are used only in the pursuit of the stated goals and objectives. 
The bill also includes a provision to ensure a fair balance between transparency and accountability on one hand and privacy on the other. An organization can apply to the Director for an exemption from disclosing its accounts to its members.
The Canada Corporations Act currently allows anyone to obtain the membership list of a not-for-profit organization. The act sets out the possible uses of such a list. Bill C-4, Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, will give this right only to the organization's members, creditors and directors.
This provision will facilitate communication among members and enable them to better coordinate their activities; it will require administrators to maintain an up-to-date membership list, thereby further facilitating logistics and administration; and it will protect the members of certain types of not-for-profit organizations from the unauthorized use of such lists. The same provisions were included in the Canada Corporations Act to punish such offences. The problem would be resolved at the source by not making such lists public. Any person wishing to consult the list would have to sign a statutory declaration limiting the ways in which the list is to be used. The bill also calls for a fine of up to $25,000 or up to six months in prison or both for anyone using a list for unauthorized purposes. This reminds us of the CRTC's do not call list. We know that such lists have been sold for about $50 for 6,000 names. People wanted their names on the CRTC list because they did not want to be bothered by telemarketers. This provision would compensate for the cost of updating the lists by removing the requirement to make them available to the general public. 
Directors and officers of not-for-profit organizations are currently exposed to numerous liabilities under the provisions of certain pieces of legislation including liability for environmental damages, liability for unpaid salaries, fiduciary duty, and liability for their own negligent actions. They should be relieved of those liabilities. Thus, the new legislation addresses the liabilities of not-for-profit directors.
Incorporation creates a legal entity that can be held liable. The organization will protect these people from personal liability when acting according to their responsibilities as defined in the legislation.
That is covered in subsection 37(1).
The bill includes a clear definition of the standards for diligence that do not hold a director liable if he or she has acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation.
That is covered in subsection 149(1)
Directors may use the defence of reasonable diligence, which gives them a remedy against unfounded complaints.
This is found in clause 150.1.
There are new provisions to indemnify directors against costs, charges and expenses incurred in respect of an unfounded proceeding or of incidents where the corporation believes the director's actions warrant indemnification.
These provisions are found in clauses 151.1 and 151.5.
The problem with this sort of provision is that highly qualified officers who know the system well might exonerate themselves by invoking the due diligence defence and thus make the members of the organization pay collectively for their errors. 
With regard to efficiency, replacing the letters patent system, involving a sort of order signed by the minister, with an as of right system of incorporation makes it much easier to set up not-for-profit organizations. First, the discretionary approval process would disappear and the incorporation process would be simplified, giving corporations greater flexibility. This process would also be more efficient and less expensive, both for corporations and for the government.
Second, eliminating the obligation to have by-laws approved gives corporations the flexibility to create by-laws to meet their particular needs. It is high time the minister's discretionary authority in this area was abolished. This will increase not only the credibility of not-for-profit organizations, but public confidence in them.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out the main issues the Bloc Québécois and many representatives of not-for-profit organizations have with Bill C-4 and the Canada Corporations Act. The Canada Corporations Act currently includes a classification system for not-for-profit organizations. The bill still does not include any mechanisms to correct this situation.
For the government, the new act does not need a classification system because the framework is permissive and flexible, allowing organizations to choose how to apply many provisions. 
However, according to the national charities and not-for-profit law section of the Canadian Bar Association, not including a general classification system is a major flaw in this bill. It then becomes important to specify if the not-for-profit organization is charitable, mutualist, political or even religious, because they would be different. I am only trying to highlight various distinctions, but we believe that the committee should tackle this issue.
As well, section 154 of the Canada Corporations Act currently stipulates that the federal minister may grant a charter of incorporation if the corporation thereby created pursues objects “to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like objects.” 
But it appears that the proposed new legislation would not require a not-for-profit organization to include in its statutes the objects it intends to pursue, thus sidestepping the whole notion of specifying what action an organization can take in accordance with its goals.
Since we know that the federal Parliament only has jurisdiction over organizations that do not have provincial goals, this raises the following question: Why does the bill not include some provision to oversee what falls under federal jurisdiction? The Bloc Québécois feels that this question should be studied in committee.
These are legitimate issues that the Bloc Québécois is trying to defend. 
Under section 92 of the Constitution, managing the social economy, volunteering and community activities falls within provincial jurisdiction. As set out in that section, all matters of a merely local or private nature fall under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.
I repeat; it is important to note that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over only those organizations that do not pursue provincial objects. Section 92, subsection 11 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants the incorporation of companies with provincial objects specifically to the provinces.
Accordingly, there seems to be a serious flaw in the bill and it must be carefully examined to avoid any potential conflict between the provinces and the federal government. The bill must be amended to limit its application to not-for-profit corporations that operate in several provinces, that have offices in several provinces or whose object comes under federal jurisdiction. 
Adding these limitations is not mandatory per se. Constitutionally, the federal government does not have the authority to legislate in areas of Quebec jurisdiction. However, to avoid any confusion that could arise from the new wording of the legislation, it would be wise to include provisions limiting the scope of its application.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that, for some time now, representatives of not-for-profit corporations have been calling for amendments to bring the Canada Corporations Act up to date. For reasons of transparency, efficiency and fairness, the Bloc Québécois believes that these amendments are legitimate and essential. However, certain points need to be clarified in committee.
Whether on matters of classification or the jurisdictions of each level of government, we believe that the committee must provide clear answers. The representatives of not-for-profit corporations deserve to be able to work with a Canada Corporations Act that effectively meets their needs.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the previous questioner lamented that the bill was very long and had a lot of details that gave him some concern. 
The bill does cover a lot of different things and it does provide a comprehensive view of some of the important provisos that will be necessary to ensure the integrity of the not-for-profit sector.
The area I want to comment on is with regard to the coming into force of the regulations. The member may want to comment on this. The bill has a substantial section on the regulations. One of the regulation provisos indicates that the governor in council, basically the cabinet, can establish regulations. It gives cabinet the power to define certain terms used in the bill but they are not defined in the bill, which I find very unusual.
The bill provides substantive latitude and causes me a bit of concern with regard to the facility to be able to change the scope of legislation through regulation rather than through the legislation itself. In normal cases, regulations are enabled by the legislation itself. I raise this from the standpoint that I hope the committee will look at the extensive provisions allowing for regulations to be put forward. In my own view, they appear to be fairly broad and sweeping and there may be items here that should be incorporated into the legislation as it exists rather than at some other time at the discretion of cabinet.
[Interjection]
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is absolutely right to raise these points because, when examining the provisions of the act, the committee will have to study 20 points.
In addition, he is perfectly right to say that the latitude of the governor in council is too great with respect to this bill.
When the bill is studied in committee, we will make some recommendations to the government. Therefore, I believe that the government should bend to stakeholders.
Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Shefford for his presentation, which has given us a solid understanding of the bill's intent. A Liberal colleague mentioned earlier that the bill was tabled about ten years ago but never adopted. My colleague raised the fact that the bill in question applies to organizations with a national, patriotic, religious or other purpose. They may be of all sorts. However, the bill does not require these organizations to reveal their reason for being.
It is somewhat illogical for a bill to define the objects of these organizations but then to not require the organization to state the reason for incorporation. We come across inconsistencies and duplication in Quebec's and Canada's jurisdictions all the time. In our ridings, not-for-profits are mostly local organizations. Thus, it is quite rare to find organizations working in several provinces or throughout Canada.
I wonder if my colleague examined this issue. Does he see that it is very important to clarify this bill?
[Interjection]
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his very pertinent question. He saw the relevance of this file and of Bill C-4, which is no minor bill. Not-for-profit organizations have asked us to change and amend many points for the past 10 years because the current legislation no longer meets their needs. It must be updated. Today's reality is not the same as yesterday's.
My colleague is wondering if every point and type of organization must have a concrete goal and definition, be it in terms of heritage, sports or something else. These goals must be consolidated so that we are not all over the map as we have been and as we continue to be because the legislation has not been amended. I can assure my colleague from Alfred-Pellan that we will study his point carefully and specifically in committee.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his speech about Bill C-4. I have a question to ask him about the future of not-for-profit organizations. Clearly, in this economic crisis, the voluntary sector must overcome many difficulties in order to survive and grow.
I would simply like to know if the bill would strengthen the voluntary sector or if it would hold the sector back in terms of reaching its important goals. This is very important, especially in the current political climate. The voluntary sector has been dealt many blows by the Conservative government. It is critical that we have some ways of strengthening this sector.
[Interjection]
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP. She is quite right. This bill will help the voluntary sector. Part of this bill provides greater protection for directors. In the past, directors were not keen on the idea of being held liable for the organization. New measures would make them a little less liable and would help them defend themselves. These measures did not exist in the past and, as a result, some volunteers did not want to take on the role of director or chair of these organizations. 
Furthermore, many members complained that they did not have enough information. They did not know how the organization spent its money. With this bill, people will know what organizations goals are and how the money is being spent. The names of the people who work for the organization will also be protected. They will not be disclosed right and left. I believe that amending this bill will encourage many more volunteers to become involved.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest also for the member from the NDP that this bill will allow not-for-profit organizations to become more transparent and more accountable. This will feed out to the people in our communities who support non-profit organizations with their donations and assistance and as such, this bill will allow Canadians to have more confidence in non-profit organizations.
Does the member think that the increased accountability and transparency would serve to make organizations stronger by building more confidence in the people in our society who would support them?
[Interjection]
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right, and that is what I was saying to my hon. colleague from the NDP.
Strengthening the act in this way will give volunteers greater confidence in the organization, because it will also tighten up the rules and procedures.
People will not feel constrained by these organizations. Some people said that not-for-profit organizations were not accountable to their members. Now, because this act will ensure greater transparency, once a month or on a quarterly basis, members will be able to consult all the books, statements of accounts, expenses and payrolls. This transparency will satisfy all volunteers. Volunteers will therefore have greater confidence in these organizations.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to second reading of Bill C-4, which deals with not-for-profit organizations. I would note first that the bill first surfaced in the House in 2004 under the then Liberal government. It was never dealt with and it came back as Bill C-262 in 2008 and here it is again. It has been about five years that the bill in various forms has been before the House of Commons.
I want to begin by speaking about the not-for-profit sector. I am very fortunate to represent a riding, Vancouver East, that has a whole diversity of absolutely incredible and amazing not-for-profit organizations, some of which would be under these federal regulations. They perform the most valuable service not only in our local community but nationally.
As we debate the bill we need to pay tribute and acknowledge the incredible value that the not-for-profit sector provides in this country. There has been a very long history in Canada of not-for-profit work. Whether it is in housing, cooperatives, delivery of services, volunteer work, or advocacy, there is a tremendous history in this country of voluntary organizations where people give their all and are literally on the front line delivering services and providing information to the citizens of Canada in many diverse communities.
It is very important for parliamentarians to recognize that if we ever put a price tag on the work that is being done in the voluntary sector we would be talking about billions of dollars. Certainly if these services and programs were being delivered directly by government, we would be talking about billions of dollars. We should recognize that the work that is done by not-for-profits in our communities is something that we benefit from. It is part of a strong civil society. It is part of a strong democratic society. Over the years the biggest struggle and challenge that not-for-profits have had is the struggle to stay in existence, not from a legal point of view, but from a financial point of view. Government funding has been withdrawn and we have seen government programs cut back, federally and provincially, and sometimes even locally, although most often it has been the local government that has had to pick up the slack.
The not-for-profit sector and our non-profit organizations have had to rely more and more on voluntary contributions and donations. They are always scrambling for money. The biggest issue facing the voluntary sector is not 170 pages of Robert's Rules of Order and a regime of putting everyone under one size fits all, it is the question of stable long-term funding. Long gone are the days when non-profit organizations could rely on core funding to continue with their core operations and then expand to whatever programs they were doing. Now every organization, I dare to say, spends probably one-quarter or more of its time writing grant applications, chasing down every small bit of money that they can in order to develop their programs.
In my riding of Vancouver East there are organizations that are literally on the front line. They are literally dealing with life and death situations. These organizations are democratic. They are transparent. Everything that they do is out there for people to see and to become involved in.
In looking at the bill, I have some very serious questions as to why we are so focused on a regulatory regime for not-for-profits when we are completely missing the point of what is the real crux of the issue for non-profits in this country. The NDP, in going through this 170 page bill clause by clause and looking at the incredibly detailed micromanagement requirements that are in there, these organizations will now have to go through various hoops and there are processes and regulations involving a lot of paperwork and reporting requirements. It is absolutely incredible. It is 170 pages of things they have to note and make sure are followed up.
I certainly have a concern that the bill in its current form will make it very difficult to attract new directors and volunteers in the not-for-profit sector. Anybody faced with this massive regulation would say, “I came here to do good work. I came here to make a contribution to my community. I came here to make good decisions. I came here to help people,” and all of a sudden that person is faced with having to deal with a massive bureaucratic regime, where one size fits all right across the country.
We have to seriously question whether or not the bill, if it is adopted in its current form, would have a counter-effect. Maybe it is being put forward from the point of view of transparency and accountability, but it may have the effect of turning people right off and asking why on earth they would get involved in doing this work when there are so many requirements and responsibilities.
I listened to the Conservative member say that the bill is about being transparent and more accountable. That leads one to believe that the status quo is not transparent and is not accountable. There are non-profit organizations that run into trouble. Any group in society from time to time may face difficulties. There are sometimes instances where there are criminal activities taking place. There are all kinds of legislation, measures and protections to deal with that, but the sense that somehow not-for-profit organizations are not transparent and accountable is a very false premise. I certainly want to put that to rest.
Another concern that we have about the bill is that it does not address the relationship between charity status, Revenue Canada and the issue of advocacy. This has been a long-standing debate. There are organizations that are very concerned about the severe limits that are put on them to do advocacy work. Somehow advocacy has become a negative word. It has become a negative component to the work that is done. However, what I see in my community is that the advocacy work, which does not mean that it is partisan, to uphold people's rights, whether it is in legal aid, housing or groups that have been very marginalized, is very important for the not-for-profit sector. This issue has not been dealt with at all. 
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are getting up to tell me that the time is up and we are going to statements, so I will continue my remarks after question period.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East. There will be 12 minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks when debate resumes on this matter. It is now time to proceed with statements by members.

Statements By Members
ImmigrationMs. Dona Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Surrey North for their confidence and trust in electing me as their member of Parliament.
Many people from around the world make the decision to immigrate to Canada. Under the previous Liberal government, new Canadians arrived in this country, only to be let down and made to work in menial jobs that hardly fit their education and training. For almost 13 years, the Liberal government sat back, watched and did nothing as a backlog of over 850,000 immigration files built up. 
Our government is dedicated to reducing this backlog by 25% over the next four years. From the establishment of the foreign credential office to the integration project, this government is providing strong leadership and showing the world that Canada truly is a mosaic of opportunities.
Chinese New YearMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
 [Member spoke in Chinese as follows:]
 Kung hay fat choi, xin nian hua leu. 
[English]
Happy Chinese new year.
I have the privilege of being elected twice in the riding of Vancouver Quadra, where many constituents have roots in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The greater Chinese community in Canada has provided immeasurable enrichment to our country spiritually, socially, culturally and financially. 
Many values and interests are shared by Canada and China, so I was pleased this week to be elected vice-chair of the Canada-China Parliamentary Association to further those interests.
Last month I represented Canada at the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Vientiane, Laos, where I met with important Chinese parliamentarians to discuss Canada-China relations, concerns and co-operation. 
On this important traditional Chinese holiday, bonne année à toute la communauté canadienne. I wish all Canadians health, happiness and prosperity in the year of the ox.
Brian JewittMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on January 24, the Outaouais suddenly lost a man who was very important to the community, Brian Jewitt.
Brian never tired of defending the French language and Quebec values, and he rarely missed Bloc Québécois or Parti Québécois events.
Brian Jewitt was born in Winnipeg and was a sailor in the British royal navy. The people of the Outaouais will never forget his contribution to the commission on the future of Quebec. His submission promoted the French language, which did not get the respect it deserved in many Pontiac businesses. 
I would like his family and his sovereignist friends to know that we mourn with them. We have lost a great Quebecker, the greatest anglophone admirer of francophone culture I have ever known. Goodbye, Brian.
Shadows of the Mind Film FestivalMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I fly home to God's country for the opening of the 46th Bon Soo Winter Carnival in Sault Ste. Marie. It is one of Canada's largest winter carnivals, with entertainment, fireworks and Mr. Bon Soo.
When it ends, the Sault will proudly celebrate the 10th anniversary of Shadows of the Mind Film Festival. 
This remarkable festival shines a light on mental health, addictions and other prevalent social topics. Ninety hard-working committee members and volunteers make it happen, with 20 films, workshops, an art show and a video competition. Close to 3,000 people will attend. It was Mike O'Shea's dream, and we thank him.
I salute Shadows of the Mind and its sponsors: Canadian Mental Health Association, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Algoma International Film Association, Algoma Public Health, Sault Ste. Marie Focus Coalition, Queer North, Algoma Consumer/Survivor Network, Algoma Family Support Network, Community Living Algoma, and the CTV network.
Cold Lake Air ShowMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our country has a rich aviation history.
On February 23, 1909, the Silver Dart airplane made history when, with John McCurdy at the controls, it became the first controllable powered aircraft to fly in Canada. About two weeks later, on March 10, 1909, McCurdy flew the aircraft on an astounding 20-kilometre circular flight around Baddeck Bay.
The year 2009 represents 100 years of powered flight in Canada. I am proud to support the Cold Lake Air Show 2009, a celebration of centennial flight.
4 Wing Cold Lake, in concert with the city of Cold Lake, the municipal district of Bonnyville and Cold Lake First Nations, will hold an air show to commemorate the importance of aviation in our region.
From the first Canadian flight in February 1909 to logistical and tactical training during World War II, the men and women of the Canadian aviation sector continue to be a point of pride for our nation.
I welcome everyone to join the people of the Lakeland area on August 1 and August 2 in celebrating our aviation history on the beautiful shores of Cold Lake. 
Winter Carnival in North BayMr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the largest francophone festival outside Quebec. I am referring to the Carnaval des Compagnons, held every year in North Bay. This year's event, the 46th carnival, will take place from February 6 to 15. 
Since 1963, the Carnaval des Compagnons has brought together the francophone community in my riding. This cultural and social activity is a major event in the life of the community. For 10 days in a row there are all sorts of shows, sporting events, plays, traditional meals and a wide range of family activities. 
For many, the centrepiece of the carnival is Bonhomme Carnaval, the mascot of the event, whose identity is never revealed until the last day. 
The North Bay Carnaval des Compagnons is a magnificent festival that celebrates francophone culture. I want to congratulate this year's organizers and encourage all Canadians to put on their toques and mittens and come enjoy the carnival.
Juno AwardsMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate two musical groups from my riding of Saint Boniface that have been announced as 2009 Juno Award nominees. 
The two groups, Chic Gamine and The Duhks, have both been nominated in the category of roots and traditional album of the year group.
I am very proud to recognize the artistic talent coming out of the francophone community in Saint Boniface.
These young talented artists are proof that Saint Boniface music is reaching beyond the boundaries of other communities and into the hearts of all Canadians.
Chic Gamine has been nominated for their self-titled debut album and includes members Andrina Turenne, Annick Brémeault, Alexa Dirks, Ariane Jean and Alexandre Sacha Daoud.
The Duhks have been nominated for their album Fast Paced World. The members of the group include Sarah Dugas, Christian Dugas, Tania Elizabeth, Jordan McConnell and Leonard Podolak.
On behalf of everyone in Saint Boniface, I want to congratulate these young artists on their hard word and dedication and on being nominated for the Juno Awards, which will be presented in Vancouver on March 29.
Regional Patriote of 2008Mr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Jean-Olivier-Chénier section of the Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste society recently awarded the title of regional Patriote for 2008 at the Saint-Eustache Maison du citoyen.
This title was awarded to Mr. Jules Théorêt, a long-time activist, who for many years was involved in a union defending the collective rights of workers.
Mr. Théorêt was obviously pleased to be receiving the honour of regional Patriote for 2008 and he captivated the audience with a passionate and forthright speech. He thanked those who toil for social justice and respect for workers' rights.
At this gathering, Mr. Théorêt expressed his hope “that all Quebeckers will become Patriotes. In these times of economic and political crisis, we must show solidarity.”
I would personally like to congratulate Mr. Théorêt on receiving this honour.
The Conservative GovernmentMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate an important milestone in this government's history.
It was three years ago today that the Conservative government and our Prime Minister were sworn into office.
What a period of time it has been. In that short time we provided tax relief for every Canadian, we strengthened our justice system's ability to tackle crime, we brought in accountability measures to clean up the mess left by the previous Liberal government and we increased our presence on the world stage.
Our record is a strong one. When that record was put to the Canadian people in the election last October, the Conservative government received a renewed mandate to deal with the issues facing Canadians.
Finally, we must not forget those who made this possible: the Conservative Party volunteers, donors, members and voters who worked so hard to make this a reality. To all those people across this great country, I say thank you. Let us celebrate this remarkable achievement.
Black History MonthHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate and celebrate Black History Month in Canada, a time when we recall the long march of African Canadians for freedom, the struggle for human dignity and liberty, and the singular contribution and legacy of African Canadians to the building of a plural Canadian identity and a diverse Canadian mosaic. 
Included in the thematic character of this Black History Month are the historic and courageous contribution of the No. 2 Construction Battalion of Canada in the building of roads, railways, bridges and defences in the first great war in 1916; the important and inspirational contribution of black athletes to the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Games; and the preservation of African Canadians' enduring contribution through telling the black narrative in museums of black history as part of intergenerational continuity.
In remembering and reaffirming the historic contribution of the black Canadian community in the building of Canada and Canadian identity, we affirm and celebrate the building of a plural Canadian community and culture, one in which, in the words of Martin Luther King, people will be not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
Warren KinsellaMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when a man has only a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail. The outbursts of top Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella are well known.
In 2007, he suggested that a female member of the Ontario legislature should be home “baking cookies” rather than attending a political event. Last week he complained that he and friends went to a popular Ottawa Chinese restaurant “if we didn't have a girlfriend who could cook”. He then accused the Chinese-Canadians of serving up barbecued cat.
Now Warren Kinsella has turned his belligerence against a popular Canadian journalist and artist, Pierre Bourque. Mr. Kinsella called him a dork for his artistic sensitivity. 
Mr. Bourque received warmest thanks from the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall for an oil painting Mr. Bourque sent them as a wedding gift. They did not think he was a dork for sharing his talent, unlike Mr. Kinsella.
Warren Kinsella's recent comments have hammered women's equality, racial tolerance and, most recently, artistic expression. It is time for the Liberal leader to ask, once again, for his hand-picked senior adviser to apologize to all Canadians.
The BudgetBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to analyze the finance minister's budget. I was disappointed to see that it contains so little for the communities of northwestern Ontario. I am equally saddened to see that the Liberal leader has led the Liberal Party down the same bold path trail-blazed by Mr. Dion.
He silently condemns the budget with one breath, and then he rubber-stamps--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot refer to other hon. members by name. I would invite him to control his comments in that respect. 
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I will watch that.
The Liberal-Conservative budget does not address the major issues my constituents have brought up. In Thunder Bay--Superior North people have called for a fairer employment insurance system, real support for the forest industry and real money for local infrastructure needs for our communities.
When will the Minister of Industry speak up for Canadian industries and Canadian workers?
Women of Zimbabwe Arise OrganizationMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, each year on Valentine's Day courageous activists from the 35,000-member organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise engage in peaceful protests that bring to light their motto, “The power of love can conquer the love of power”.
Women of Zimbabwe Arise is one of the most remarkable peaceful responses built across tribal and racial lines by Zimbabwean citizens who are determined to be advocates for social goals such as access to education, health care and food; to speak out, regardless of the physical danger to themselves, against political oppression and in favour of power-sharing; and, notwithstanding the endless provocations of a regime that has jailed and beaten elderly protesters and pregnant protesters, to do all of this peacefully and with love, not anger.
This Valentine's Day let each of us whose paths are so much smoother than the one chosen by these brave Zimbabwean women salute them for demonstrating to their government and to the world that there is no power that can crush the power of love.
Aerospace IndustryRobert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, some job losses are more surprising than others and less publicized. This is the case for the job cuts in the aerospace sector. First, it was Bell Helicopter and now Bombardier Aerospace has announced the layoff of 710 employees in the Montreal area alone. Another leader of the Quebec economy has fallen prey to the economic crisis and the failure of the Conservatives in Quebec to take remedial action.
What was the response of the Minister of Industry this week when questioned about this sector in particular? On February 3, he announced that all was well with this industry in Quebec. On the eve of the 710 layoffs, he confirmed that the sector was a global competitor and that the Conservatives would continue to support it. But what are they really doing?
The Bloc Québécois fears that the Conservatives will offer the aerospace industry the same support the forestry and manufacturing sectors received in the recent budget—a mere pittance.
Official LanguagesMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on yet another case involving official languages. In the ruling, the court indicated that “the Official Languages Act states that not only must federal services be provided in English and French, but that these services must be of equal quality”.
This ruling will have an enormous impact across the country. The Supreme Court has made it clear that, from now on, when the federal government provides a service—any program, any department—it will have to take the particular needs of the linguistic minority into account.
The important thing here is that the justice quoted part VII of the Official Languages Act, which is now binding. The ruling would not have been possible before Bill S-3 was passed. That happened under a Liberal government. I would therefore like to salute the courage, vision and dedication of former senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, and the force and determination of the minister responsible for official languages at the time, the current member for Ottawa—Vanier, who worked so hard to make the bill a reality.
Leader of the Bloc QuébécoisMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has once again shown us how intolerant he can be and how much he dislikes people who dare to have an opinion that differs from his own. 
Today, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is once again going after President Sarkozy, simply for expressing an opinion that is shared by others.
Mr. Sarkozy is asking a good question: Does the world, in the midst of this unprecedented crisis it is facing, need division? Who would say yes to that? 
The leader of the Bloc Québécois would rather divide Quebeckers with his sectarian ideology. The leader of the Bloc has thus shown that he has no respect for people who do not share his point of view or for our European allies who do not think the way he does. 

Oral Questions
The EconomyHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January, 129,000 jobs were lost across the country, the largest monthly decline in recorded history, a number three times worse than forecast, and this was after the Prime Minister assured us mere months ago that if Canada were facing a recession we would already have had it.
Will the government admit that it not only did not see this coming but it has absolutely no idea where it is going?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we absolutely know where we are going and we would implore all hon. members in the House to work with us.
As early as interviews at the end of 2007, the Prime Minister was clear with Canadians that we were going to be facing some difficult economic times.
We implore all hon. members in the House to stop complaining about getting the job done and actually help us get it done.
John McCallum: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and a few days before he said “tough economic times”, he said that the land was strong. What does he know?
In January alone, 129,000 jobs were lost, a number three times higher than was predicted, an all-time record. The Conservatives are underestimating the problems and overestimating the strength of their solutions.
Have the Conservatives finally realized that their incompetence has real consequences for Canadians?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, speaking about consequences, if we do not get the budget implementation bill, which will be tabled here today, through the House, the consequences will impact Canadians.
We are all very concerned and troubled when any Canadian loses a job. We have a chance to move this economic action plan forward and I would encourage all hon. members to help us expedite that.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, we could have been debating it by now if the government had its ways and means motion right the first time.
The budget claims that it will save or create 190,000 jobs for Canadians, but over the past three months the Conservatives have already been spectators to 234,000 Canadian jobs lost. Clearly, by their own arithmetic, the budget is a failure.
How can the minister explain to Canadians that the budget will save fewer jobs than the country has already lost in three short months?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the former economist seems to like to dabble in academic debate while people are losing their jobs.
It is incredibly important that we get this passed. I would like to suggest that the member for Markham—Unionville consult with some of his constituents. 
I will quote the mayor of Markham who said, “I want to applaud this government...for making the budget so comprehensive when it comes to job creation”. I applaud that sort of recognition. He went on to say, “I think it's great news for Markham and all municipalities”. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, this morning's statistics on the number of jobs lost take one's breath away. It is unprecedented in Canadian history. For months, the Conservatives have responded to our concerns by saying that everything was going very well and that we did not need to worry.
Will they now admit that their refusal to see this has kept them from taking the measures needed to mitigate this disaster?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, no one can express how troubling it is when one Canadian loses a job. We talk about numbers. What is important here is the fact that any Canadian has lost his or her job.
We have a challenge in front of us and we have a plan to meet that challenge.
[Intervention]
An. hon. member:  It is serious.
Mr. Menzies:  Yes, it is a serious problem so let us be serious about it. Let us work together to ensure we put this plan in place as fast as we can. 
I would encourage all hon. members to quit bickering and get on with what matters to Canadians.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives inherited a healthy economy and balanced budgets. In the month of January alone, 26,000 jobs were lost, just in Quebec and the unemployment rate has risen to 7.2%. In Quebec, residential foreclosures were at a four-year high in January and hundreds of families have found themselves on the street.
Have the Conservatives woken up? Do they now understand how serious this crisis is?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening, he would know that I was reflecting on the fact that the Prime Minister recognized this early on, as did the finance minister in the fall 2007 economic statement. 
We put in tax cuts. We put in measures to ensure jobs were continuing to be created. Our economic action plan, which will be tabled in this House today, provides more measures to ensure we maintain the jobs that we have and that we slow down the loss of jobs. However, if we cannot get that through this House, we cannot provide any help to Canadians.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning from Statistics Canada that the manufacturing sector lost over 100,000 jobs in January, nearly a third of them in Quebec. That is the largest monthly loss ever since comparable data have been available. 
Given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, does not believe that the Conservative plan will produce the desired results in terms of employment, will the Prime Minister admit that his budget is off the mark and that it puts the manufacturing and forestry sectors at a disadvantage?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, once again we are getting into an academic debate of whose numbers are right. If we look at the private sector forecasts that have been put forward in the last six months, there is not a lot of credibility in those numbers.
The numbers are changing by the day but the important thing to remember is that Canadians are in difficult times, through no fault of their own. This is a global recession. We are treating all provinces the same and all industries the same. We are trying to provide a plan that will help those industries. I would ask all members to please help us get that through.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to see the parliamentary secretary question the numbers issued by Statistics Canada, a federal agency with an international reputation.
Tembec and Domtar have recently announced layoffs. So have Bombardier and Bell Helicopter. Yet the government offers mere crumbs to the manufacturing and aerospace sectors. The Minister of Finance is only just beginning to peep out from under his blindfold and is now talking about perhaps adding further support measures.
Will the Prime Minister correct the situation and announce a real support plan, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for several months?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I assume the stimulus package that the hon. member is talking about is the one he voted against. That is an incredible statement for someone to make who did not even read the budget, who did not even address that and who actually is not part of bringing the stimulus package forward. 
I am not suggesting that Statistic Canada's numbers are wrong. I am just suggesting that we need 308 people to actually help Canadians by voting for this implementation.
Mrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than 200,000 jobs have been lost in Canada since October, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Mouvement Desjardins both predict huge increases in the number of unemployed. Unfortunately, if nothing is done, only one unemployed person in two will qualify for benefits, even if they are extended for five weeks.
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development understand that because of the difficult economic situation, employment insurance must be improved, with the top priority being better access to benefits?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is sad when even one person loses his or her job. That is why we created our economic action plan to help everyone who has unfortunately been laid off. That is why we are asking for the support of all our partners in this House to move our plan forward, to protect jobs, to create new jobs and to keep Canada's economy moving.
Josée Beaudin: Mr. Speaker, among the thousands of unemployed are workers aged 55 and over who cannot be retrained. The minister has to stop denying this and making the mistake of proposing retraining measures instead of an income support program for older workers.
Will the minister give up on her ideological stubbornness and introduce an older worker support program? Time is of the essence.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. In fact, a few years ago, we launched an initiative targeting older workers. We had success with this program, which is why we have expanded it. The program helps workers learn new skills so that they can continue working. The opposition wants to put these people out to pasture; we have confidence in older workers.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, with the figures released today, over a quarter of a million Canadians have been thrown out of work in the last 90 days. In January alone, the increase was three times what was forecasted, leaving 129,000 workers scrambling. This is only the beginning.
Canadians are not looking for whom to blame, they just want to know they are going to get the help they need to weather this economic storm. The parliamentary secretary says that we should get serious. Okay, let us do that.
 Will the government finally acknowledge the urgent need to eliminate the two-week waiting period and increase accessibility to EI right now for those in need?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that she wants to create jobs and that is what we want to do for those who are unfortunate enough to lose theirs. That is why, in our economic action plan, we are expanding work-sharing. That is why we are making unprecedented investments in retraining those who have lost their jobs, so they can participate in the jobs of tomorrow.
The hon. member wants to make it easier for people to not take advantage of those opportunities in the future. She is also blocking it by not supporting our budget implementation act, which will be tabled today. I encourage her to change her position.
InfrastructureLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, this recession is looking a lot worse than anyone forecasted. There are now 1.3 million Canadians looking for work, yet the government's plan is clearly too little, too late and its infrastructure rules are too stringent to lead the economic recovery that Canadians need.
We do not need to wait to see if things will get worse. They are worse right now.
 Will the government increase its stimulus package and remove the matching infrastructure rules that are slowing down the country's economic recovery?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have come forward with a series of new programs and initiatives designed to put a shot in the arm of the Canadian economy in every region of the country. We have indicated to our provincial and territorial partners that we are prepared to accelerate the existing building Canada programs so more money can get into the hands of workers right across the country.
Step by step, we feel that infrastructure can be a very important place to help provide economic growth. We are particularly looking at a number of projects in her home community of Vancouver, where we were very concerned with the unemployment rates that came out today.
Employment InsuranceMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a quarter of a million people have lost their jobs in three months. In January alone, 129,000 Canadians, 30,000 of them in Quebec, three times more than expected, lost their jobs. Unemployment is skyrocketing: it is at 7% in Trois-Rivières, 8% in Montreal, 8.5% in the Saguenay, and 11% in Windsor. Employment insurance eligibility criteria are appalling; half of these people are excluded.
When can we expect changes that will help these people? They need help now.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we recognize how sobering the job loss numbers are this month. Unfortunately, we expect to see more of that over 2009. That is why we, as a House of Commons, have to take action now to ensure our economic action plan moves forward quickly to help these people by providing them with EI assistance and extra opportunities for training for the jobs of the future.
We consulted Canadians across the country. They told us they wanted more benefits. We are giving them five weeks more at the end. I urge the—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga--Streetsville.
The EconomyMrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's job loss numbers in Ontario alone are staggering, 71,000 jobs are gone. While it focused on photo ops, the government failed to deliver billions in infrastructure and investments that could have saved them.
The Prime Minister claims he acted a year ago, yet we have negative productivity growth for the last 18 months.
Why did the Prime Minister fail to read the writing on the wall? Why did he fail to act for so long?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, once again I would implore the House to recognize the fact that we have a plan in place. Part of it is delivering infrastructure. Part of it is extending EI. Part of it is providing tax cuts to businesses so they can continue to employ people.
However, we cannot get any of that accomplished if the opposition continues to hold up the legislation. The Liberals are supporting us on this. We encourage members to help get this through the House. We are planning on having extended hours at our committee meetings when we get it there. It is imperative we get it there.
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge that Ontario's auto, forestry and manufacturing sectors were getting pushed to the brink.
Instead of taking action, the Minister of Finance encouraged people not to invest in Ontario, and the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took his advice.
As a result, with 40% of the population, Ontario was hit with 55% of the job losses last month. That is 71,000 Ontarians. Why?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously tremendously concerned with the economic numbers coming out of the province of Ontario. The good news is we are working co-operatively with the provincial government on a series of initiatives to ensure that we provide needed shot in the arm to the Ontario economy.
I can indicate for the member from the greater Toronto area that we will be breaking ground in short order on the Spadina subway extension. That will put a lot of Canadians and Ontarians to work.
We also have a lot of initiatives with respect to transportation in the GTA, including a major retrofit and redesign of Union Station, which will be another example of the Government of Ontario and the city of Toronto working co-operatively to get the people of the greater Toronto region to work.
Employment InsuranceHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that Canada is not the U.S. Our economic situation is different. In fact, the Prime Minister is absolutely right because in—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: And he may want to wait, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is only right because our January job loss rate was twice as bad as that of the United States.
Will the Conservatives finally do something to help the unemployed by reducing the two week waiting for EI, speeding up the processing of EI and fixing the eligibility rules for the 71,000 Ontarians who have lost their jobs? Why should they not qualify for the EI benefits that they desperately need right now?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, prior to tabling our economic action plan, we did consultations across Canada, an unprecedented number of consultations with ordinary Canadians, with industry and with a wide range of stakeholders, including our provincial and territorial counterparts. They asked us for improvements, and we are offering them. We are expanding training so people will be prepared for the jobs of the future. They asked for five weeks. They asked for more benefits. We are offering five weeks. The opposition members have asked for two. Why can they not take yes for an answer?
The EconomyScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' failure to negotiate ITAR exemptions from the U.S. government is killing Canadian defence and aerospace jobs. Their failure to advance the smart border initiative is killing Canadian manufacturing jobs. Their failure to be at the negotiating table is killing Canadian auto sector jobs.
Will the Conservatives finally admit that their failure to stand up for Canada is costing Canadians their jobs in record numbers? In fact, the job rate loss in Canada in January is worse than that of the U.S.
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week we had a vote on the government's economic action plan. The opposition leader allowed his party, in an unheard of measure, to have a free vote. Over 90% of Liberal members voted in favour of the government plan.
We would encourage the Liberal members to support us as we try to implement this plan quickly.
CultureMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of culture, Christine St-Pierre, is asking for new programs to help artists tour abroad. According to the minister, the measures announced in the budget “do not compensate for the reduction in international exposure”. 
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages listen to the minister's argument that we have to help our artists tour abroad because they are our best ambassadors?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that our government is the most supportive government of arts and culture in Canada's history. We have talked a lot about our economic action plan this morning during question period. I would like to outline a little of what the economic action plan includes for artists. More than $276 million in new money in support of arts and culture, which is unheard of in Canada. A grand total of almost $530 million of funding are committed in this budget to the arts. It is great news. I cannot understand why the Bloc does not support it.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, according to Minister St-Pierre, an agreement allowing Quebec to decide where and how money for culture should be invested is totally doable. “It worked for health and immigration,” she added. The Government of Quebec submitted an official request for talks on this subject last April. The federal government never acknowledged the letter.
My question is simple. Will the minister give Quebec the cultural sovereignty it wants, that is, all of the powers and moneys associated with culture?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I can assume by the question that the Bloc is only looking to deflect from what is really a great story. Frankly, what we should be focusing on are the outstanding investments that the government is making, under the economic action plan, into the arts and culture community for Canada. Like everything else, like EI, like the investments into infrastructure that the government will make, the Bloc will vote against these outstanding investments in arts and culture. I cannot understand it.
National Battlefields CommissionMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now know that the re-enactment of the battle of the Plains of Abraham is a propaganda project cooked up under the sponsorship program. From 1998 onwards, the strategic plan of the National Battlefields Commission was to counter the governing PQ and to sell Canadian unity. this plan was written up by none other than Gosselin Communications, a key player in the sponsorship scandal.
Does the government recognize that by refusing to denounce the approach taken by the National Battlefields Commission, it is accepting ownership of the propaganda brought to light by the Gomery Commission?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that he is now attacking the sponsorship party because, a month ago, the Bloc Québécois wanted to form a coalition with this very party.
With regard to this Quebec City event, it is a historical and not a political event. The honourable member does not have to attend if he does not wish to do so.
Jean Dorion: Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the question.
Knowing that this strategic plan was requested by the Canada Information Office, the federal government's propaganda machine overseen by Alfonso Gagliano, how can they continue to say that there is nothing there and that the re-enactment is not partisan and not politically motivated?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, once again, given that it was the Bloc Québécois who wished to enter into a coalition with the sponsorship party, it should be explaining why it did that.
Our government is doing a good job of public administration. With regard to this event, it is a historical and not a political event.
Employment InsuranceMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the inactions of the Conservatives are obvious today with the record job loss figures, and those who have lost their jobs are being ignored. 
A constituent of mine, Norma Peck, lost her job December 9 and filed for benefits that same week. It is now nine weeks later and Norma and her two daughters have received no help from the Conservatives.
 With today's news of the record job losses, does the minister understand the degree of urgency that is out there? I ask the minister to please help these people.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that people who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs get the benefits they need and deserve just as quickly as possible. That is why we have taken, and are continuing to take, significant efforts to do that. We have people working overtime. We have extended our call centre hours. We are working with companies to help them process their claims faster. We want to ensure that these people get the benefits they deserve as quickly as possible.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, regurgitating talking points is offering no help to these people.
 Norma Peck phoned the call centre during all of January with a great deal of frequency. I guess a mother with no income who is trying to feed her two daughters would do that. Service Canada employees are trying their best to accommodate these people but there are not enough resources in the system.
The minister has to understand the problem and the hardship out there. When is she going to wake up, take some action, and show these people that she gives a damn?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The chief opposition whip I think would not want to use intemperate language in the House, and the next time he asks his question he will want to refrain from such an example.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we care very much about these people. That is why we are adding additional resources. We are tracking how we are performing on this on a monthly basis. In fact, we are actually tracking it weekly.
I invite the hon. member, with his very serious case, to approach me after question period so that we can deal with that specific case in as prompt a manner as possible to make sure that we are taking care of his constituent.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister can talk about adding resources, but in January, 26,000 workers in Quebec joined the long lineups at employment insurance offices. The Conservatives are simply not prepared to address the situation. Everyone who calls to make employment insurance claims tells the same story: the phone lines are busy and there is a 40-day waiting period for processing.
How can a family whose livelihood has just disappeared make ends meet when it has no income for over a month?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we want to help these people as soon as possible. That is why we have added human resources, we have extended our hours for people and we have improved our computer system, all in order to provide service and distribute money as quickly as possible. Other resources in our economic plan will be introduced today. I urge the other members to support it so we may increase our efforts and our resources.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. The minister was so insensitive that she said she did not want the employment insurance system to become “too lucrative” because she wants to encourage people to go back to work. How would she feel if her income were taken away for 40 days? Would she find that situation lucrative?
Will the hundreds of families whose homes were seized in January, these Quebec families, benefit from an employment insurance system that is too lucrative? I would like to hear what the minister has to say.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, what we want to do is prepare the people who have been laid off for the jobs of the future. That is why we will make unprecedented investments in training these people, even those who have been out of work for several years. We therefore need the support of our partners here in the House of Commons to launch these new programs aimed at helping these people get back to work. 
Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of my constituents, Christina, wrote to me because her husband has just been laid off. We know that those who are unemployed are losing faith. Unemployed Canadians are worried about their ability to put food on their tables, to keep their homes and provide for their families.
Would the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development inform Canadians and assure families like Christina's, who are experiencing unemployment, what our government is doing on behalf of them in these very difficult times?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we do understand the hardships that people who are being laid off are facing. That is why we are proposing, in our economic action plan, to help over 400,000 people benefit from an additional five weeks of EI benefits. It will help 160,000 people, including long tenured and older workers, to get trained up so that they can continue to work, to provide food for their families. That is why we will be creating tens of thousands of jobs while we are renovating and building social housing for the most vulnerable.
AfghanistanMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to recent reports commanders on the ground refused a NATO order to target drug traffickers in Afghanistan because they were concerned about violating international law. This NATO order is actually in violation of the spirit of the motion on Afghanistan that Parliament passed.
Does the government believe that such military action will resolve the drug problem in Afghanistan and does the government support NATO orders that potentially put our soldiers at risk of violating international law?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, alliance members, including Canada, decided at the NATO defence minister's meeting in Budapest that ISAF may carry out direct operations against the narcotics industry which could include destruction of narcotics production facilities and the apprehension of drug traffickers supporting the insurgency.
Canada welcomes NATO's decision on countering narcotics. That being said, countering narcotics has not been identified as one of Canada's priorities in Afghanistan. However, let us be clear. There is a direct connection between the illicit drug trade and insurgent activity. That insurgent activity kills and wounds Canadian soldiers and Afghan civilians.
All Canadian Forces operations are carried out in accordance with our legal international obligations.
Paul Dewar: I am not sure we got much clarity on that issue, Mr. Speaker. We will need a little bit more because this is a very serious issue. On a related issue, Canadians are extremely concerned about accusations that one of our agents may have been involved in torture and interrogation.
Could the government confirm whether or not Sarah, the Canadian, is in fact a Canadian? Could the government confirm whether or not she was acting with the authority of the Canadian government and what actions has the government taken to ensure that Canada's reputation has not been damaged?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleagues in the House that my department has no knowledge with respect to these allegations. The Government of Canada has in the past objected strongly in instances where foreign agents claimed alleged links to Canada.
TaxationRobert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance maintains that the Income Tax Act, which allows double deductions, is a good deal for Canadian businesses because it allows them to remain competitive internationally. The United States, France and the United Kingdom prohibit double deductions for a single loan.
How can the parliamentary secretary justify this?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House, I believe it was just yesterday, there was an appointed expert panel of independent experts that provided an opportunity for every Canadian, including members of the Bloc Québécois to put forward their suggestions to this panel. They heard nothing from them other than the heckling that we hear in the House today, which is a little late because the expert panel made recommendations. We are moving forward on those recommendations. It is an opportunity for us to allow our Canadian companies to compete internationally. 
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the government made this decision based on recommendations from its fake advisory group.
But, can the parliamentary secretary deny that most of the stakeholders who were consulted by this fake group are the same ones who benefit from this double deduction, notably banks and oil companies?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible accusation for any member of the House to make.
These were respected experts in their field, businessmen, and he calls them fake. I am sure they are all duly offended by that reprehensible comment. I would suggest that the member retract that statement. We respect Canadians. We respect their advice. Most of all, we respect people who stand up when they have an opportunity to speak, instead of howling in the background after the decisions are taken.
InfrastructureHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the government to act in a fair, accountable and transparent manner, especially when it is facing the biggest job losses in recorded history. However, it seems that 78% of all the infrastructure projects in the building Canada fund have been allocated to Conservative ridings. This is despite the fact that Conservatives only represent 46% of the seats in the House of Commons.
How can the government act so irresponsibly? Is it only Conservative roads that need to be fixed?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal Party put out a list of projects. It said that grants were given to Conservative ridings. One grant that it talked about was in Kenora. The announcement was made on July 24. At that time it was a Liberal riding. When the people of Canada were consulted, they changed their minds.
We made an announcement on February 22 last year with the Premier of New Brunswick to support a new conference centre in downtown Fredericton. That constituency was a Liberal constituency at the time, but it is listed as a Conservative one. Of course, it is now represented by a good member from the Conservative Party.
Saint John, New Brunswick, again with the—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  More, more!
The Speaker: Order. We may get more in the answer to the supplementary question.
We will move on to the hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South.
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks he is being funny, but the 234,000 Canadians who lost their jobs are not laughing. Canadians have seen that they cannot trust the Conservative government.
In my own riding of Mississauga—Brampton South, the Conservatives have announced and re-announced the same transit funding again and again. 
Why does the minority government insist on showering its own supporters with taxpayers' dollars while the majority of Canadians are left out in the cold?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I will say the last one over again. There is a picture here with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick announcing $26 million for Saint John. At the time, it was represented by a Liberal. After the people of Canada were consulted, the people of Saint John changed their minds and elected a good Conservative member.
The Liberals can spread the half-truths, lies and innuendo. We do not believe it and Canadians will not be fooled.
Steel IndustryTony Martin: Mr. Speaker, Sault Ste. Marie steelworkers are among the best in the world. Our high quality steel products compete with pride internationally. However, we are experiencing layoffs and temporary shutdowns. We need to ensure access to markets, strong domestic demand, and we need to stand up to the unfair and illegal dumping of cheap low quality steel from countries like China.
Why is the government not in Washington standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the steelworkers union, with Leo Gerard and Ken Neumann, in defence of the North American steel industry?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, certainly, Canada has been standing up for the steel industry. We are constantly in negotiations with our trading partners around the world to ensure that fair trade practice and free trade practice is taking place. It is hard to answer the question over the chatter. The reality is that the Canadian government will always stand up for Canadian industry.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, the chatter is coming from his own members. 
Within NAFTA and the WTO, Canada is permitted a buy Canadian strategy. Not only is it legal, domestic procurement strategies are in place with our NAFTA partners, the U.S. and Mexico. Only Canada seems to be satisfied to not ensure that a portion of tax dollars stay in Canada to boost domestic demand. It is not protectionism, it is common sense.
When will the government recognize that balance is needed to ensure the longstanding viability of our steel industry and kickstart a buy Canadian strategy?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, there is balance in the marketplace now. The hon. member would like to say, and mislead the House, that the Canadian government is not standing up for Canadian steelworkers. That is absolutely false. There are currently more than 20 anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures in place against imports from China. Several of those measures are against Chinese steel.
InfrastructureMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Parkdale—High Park identified a list of projects from the building Canada fund and claimed that an inordinate number of them were in Conservative ridings.
Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities please inform the House of the significant commitments our government has made in infrastructure from coast to coast to coast?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, one of the Liberal members opposite was spreading some half-truths yesterday. He produced a list of 27 projects totalling about $1 billion. One single project he left out, which was for $662 million, goes through the ridings of Vaughan and York West. This clearly demonstrates that Liberals are not being upfront and honest with Canadians.
We are moving forward with an aggressive plan to create jobs, hope and opportunity. That project, the Spadina subway extension, will be ready to break ground in the coming weeks. It will put thousands of Canadians to work. We are excited about that.
Human RightsMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the ravages of Zimbabwe to the present crisis in Sri Lanka, the Conservatives have failed to show any leadership. 
The conflict in DRC has killed over 45,000 Congolese each month, with thousands of women being raped, but still the Canadian government is all too silent. We cannot allow ourselves to stand idly by and watch more innocent victims suffer.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, where is our moral leadership? Where is the once strong and proud Canadian voice which used to champion human rights and decry these kinds of atrocities?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the issues of human rights, rule of law, democracy and freedom have never been stronger with this government in its representations.
Let me just recall what happened this week when we had a debate on the Sri Lanka issue. In the papers today and on the news the Liberals are being accused of political pandering. I would expect a higher standard from that party in front of us.
375th anniversary of Trois-RivièresMs. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the adjournment debate last night, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that his government is helping finance the 375th anniversary of Trois-Rivières. That is untrue. The organizing committee has received nothing from the Department of Canadian Heritage to date. This statement from the parliamentary secretary demonstrates his lack of understanding of this file. 
If the money has already been sent, as he claims, can the minister explain why his government promised, throughout the election campaign, to put $2 million into the 375th anniversary fund?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, if there is a misunderstanding on this file, it is certainly not within the government.
The 375th anniversary of Trois-Rivières is a great event. It is an event which all Canadians will celebrate. Our government has committed up to $2 million toward this anniversary. It is a great investment. It is a great celebration. We are proud to partner with Trois-Rivières. Bonne fête!
InfrastructureMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Ontario has been especially hard hit with over 71,000 job losses last month alone. The majority were family-supporting jobs in the manufacturing sector.
The unemployment rate is up across southern Ontario: London, 7.8%; Hamilton and Oshawa, 8%; Kitchener, 8.4%; St. Catharines, 8.8%; and Windsor, 10.9%.
Will the government take the shackles off the stimulus plan and funnel infrastructure money into municipalities for the people who need it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are working cooperatively with the Government of Ontario. A series of announcements will be coming in short order.
We are committed to providing a much needed shot in the arm to the southern Ontario economy. That is not enough for the people who live in that part of the country. That is why recently, the Prime Minister, with the help of the Minister of Finance, announced a new southern Ontario economic development agency. My premier has been fighting for something like this for many years. Finally my premier, Dalton McGuinty, has some support in Ottawa.
The EnvironmentMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of the Environment please explain to the House today how our investments toward fighting climate change are moving us forward to a cleaner environment?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Kitchener Centre to the House environment committee and thank him for his excellent work.
Our investments in clean technology, particularly in areas such as carbon capture and storage, allow Canada to lead the world in transformative technologies. The partnering that we have achieved with the provinces through initiatives such as the ecotrust has allowed the provinces, within their own jurisdictions, to pursue the reduction of greenhouse gases.
It is crucial in our collective fight as a federation that we work together to reduce greenhouse gases and clean up our environment.
Points of OrderHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the government is misleading the House. During oral questions government ministers continually referred to a bill that the opposition is not supporting and the bill has not even been tabled in the House. That is totally unacceptable and it is misleading this House.
The Speaker: I think the first comment about it was that the bill was about to be introduced or something, but I agree, the wording about tabling, I do not know how bills get tabled, they usually get introduced, so in my view, the use of the word is inappropriate. However, that seemed to be used on every which side. In any event, we will see what happens during routine proceedings. I am sure the hon. member for Beaches—East York will be watching routine proceedings with great interest.

Routine Proceedings
Extradition Treaty Between Canada and ItalyLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table several documents.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Italian Republic concerning Extradition”. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
North American Free Trade AgreementLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America amending Appendix 6 of Annex 300-B, Textiles and Apparel Goods, of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States”. As well, an explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty. 
Canada-Poland Social Security AgreementLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, an agreement on social security between Canada and the Republic of Poland. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
Canada-Brazil Framework Agreement for Cooperation on Science, Technology and InnovationLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) , I would like to table, in both official languages, the Framework Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil for Cooperation on Science, Technology and Innovation. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
Certain Conventional Weapons ConventionLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Protocol V”. An explanatory memorandum is included in the treaty.
Canada-United States Agreement on the General Agreement on Trade in ServicesLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Joint Letter from the United States of America and Canada, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Procedures for the implementation of Article XXI of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)” relating to the modifications proposed to the GATS Schedule (GATS/SC/90) of the United States of America to withdraw its commitment on gambling and betting services. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
Canada-Russia Nuclear Energy Cooperation AgreementLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, still with leave of the House, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Russian Federation constituting an Additional Agreement to the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy”, done on November 20, 1989. An explanatory memorandum is also included with this treaty.
International Hydrographic OrganizationLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Protocol of Amendments to the Convention on the International Hydrographic Organization”. An explanatory memorandum is included in the treaty.
Budget Implementation Act, 2009Diane Finley:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Interparliamentary DelegationsDean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group representing its participation at the National Governors Association 2008 annual meeting, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 11 to 14; the Pacific Northwest Economic Region 18th annual summit, Vancouver, British Columbia, July 20 to 24, 2008; and the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance fall meeting held September 14 to 16, 2008, in Washington, D.C.
Committees of the HouseMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, January 29, the committee has considered vote 5b for the House of Commons under Parliament, of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, and reports on the same.
Canada Pension PlanRaymonde Folco:  moved for leave to introduce C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (episodic disability)
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to table, once again, a bill to protect individuals affected by an episodic disability. I wish to thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for supporting this bill, which will allow these individuals to qualify for benefits provided under the Canada Pension Plan.
An episodic disability is one related to, for example, a mental illness, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, HIV-AIDS, or sickle-cell anemia.
The bill that I am re-introducing will eliminate the systemic barriers that prevent people with episodic disabilities from integrating, in every sense of the word, into the labour force, the community and society.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Income Tax ActRaymonde Folco:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credits for dependants).
Mr. Speaker, today I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House to introduce a bill that would amend the Income Tax Act to help those who take care of families abroad by allowing them to benefit from the same tax credit as Canadians who have family in Canada. I would like to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for seconding this bill, which will bring justice and equality to our Income Tax Act.
According to a 2008 report from Statistics Canada, in the two years after arriving in Canada, immigrants begin taking care of their family by sending anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000. Many of these newcomers have modest incomes. We are talking about after-tax dollars. The World Bank estimated that in 2005 $167 billion American was sent to developing countries.
I am asking for justice and equality in our laws for all Canadian citizens who are responsible for aging members of their family. Even if their family is overseas, they still have obligations and commitments.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
International Treaty Accountability ActPaul Dewar:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, An Act to ensure accountability in respect of Canada’s obligations under international treaties.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for seconding the bill.
It is important that Canada not only say that it will have accountability but that it must have accountability. This bill would ensure that there is accountability on all international treaties that we sign onto. This is something that the government, when it was in opposition and, in fact, in government, said that it would do. It has not followed through on that and this would ensure that, if passed, it would follow through on its commitment.
It is about time we had accountability in all aspects of government and it would start, obviously, with international obligations.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Corporate Social Responsibility of Mining Corporations Outside Canada ActPaul Dewar:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, An Act respecting Corporate Social Responsibility for the Activities of Canadian Mining Corporations in Developing Countries.
Madam Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Halifax for seconding this bill. 
This bill would ensure Canada had the same obligations overseas as it has here for all of its mining extractive industries, for things like labour law, human rights and environmental laws.
In the past, the government has said that it would act on this and it has the report on corporate social responsibility to actually engage in this area but it has sat on the minister's desk without any reply.
This bill would have Canada apply the ideas and the principles of corporate social responsibility for the extractive industries overseas. This applies to places like the Congo, for sure in Darfur and Sudan, and other places around the world.
I would love it if the government would please take my bill.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Bisphenol A (BPA) Control ActPaul Dewar:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, An Act to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in specified products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for seconding this bill. 
I actually introduced this bill in the last Parliament. The government adopted some of the facets of this bill that would prohibit and eliminate the use of bisphenol A in products. As we know, bisphenol A is a chromosome disrupter. It does affect human health, particularly the most vulnerable. This bill would eliminate bisphenol A in all products in Canada.
 I want to push the government a little more on the adoption of this principle and look forward to this being adopted by this Parliament.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMario Silva: Madam Speaker, I join with thousands of petitioners who have signed the war resisters support campaign. Canada has a moral duty to support all those brave soldiers who oppose the war. 
This past Wednesday, U.S. war resister, Cliff Cornell, surrendered himself to U.S. border police after being ordered to leave Canada. He was promptly arrested. He is the second Iraq war resister to be held in Whatcom county jail. He follows Robin Long who was deported in July.
The House and the courts have already spoken in favour of allowing them to stay. The petitioners want to know why the Conservative government will not abide by the proud Canadian tradition and allow them to stay?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition in a continuing series of petitions signed by residents of the nation's capital concerning the matter of heavy trucks crossing the heart of our capital city through established communities. In particular, these petitioners ask the Government of Canada to instruct the National Capital Commission to proceed with a detailed assessment of an interprovincial bridge linking the Canotec Industrial Park to the Gatineau Airport, which is option seven of the first phase of the interprovincial crossings environmental assessment, a position shared by the Governments of Ontario and Quebec.
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 87 constituents from my riding of Halifax who are deeply concerned about the ongoing situation in Gaza. 
They call for an end to the fighting and for an opening of the borders to much needed aid. Further, they call upon Parliament to immediately restore aid to the region.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I have documents here, including the signatures of 450 petitioners who would like to send a message to the government as soon as possible regarding its proposals to amend the Food and Drugs Act. 
They want the government to hear their concerns now, before it reintroduces the bill that was known as Bill C-51. They are very concerned that this bill will hurt people's access to natural health products and not do the job when it comes to the safety of drugs. 
They encourage the government to reconsider its proposition and to do the right thing by introducing meaningful legislation to ensure safety of food and drugs while not harming access to natural health products.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions, I am pleased to present a petition forwarded to me by over 100 students from Cawthra Park Secondary School located in my riding of Mississauga South. 
These students have expressed their concern about the periodic and substantial spiking in gasoline prices based on market pressures precipitated by speculators and not on the true cost of productions or refinery or distribution costs. They are concerned about the burden it places on not only ordinary Canadians, but also on our economy as a whole. 
The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to take all possible measures to moderate gasoline prices and the swings in prices in the best interest of all Canadians.
I would also like to congratulate these students from Cawthra Park Secondary School for expressing their views directly to the Parliament of Canada and I encourage our youth across the land to continue to have their voices heard at all levels of government.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming debate. Before question period, the hon. member for Vancouver East had 12 minutes left.
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see you in the Chair. I know the people of Victoria are very proud of you being our Assistant Deputy Speaker.
Before question period I was talking about this massive bill of about 170 pages, Bill C-4, that deals with the regulation of not-for-profit corporations. In my comments I was talking about advocacy. 
One of the problems we have with the bill is that it does not address the core issues and the critical issues that are facing non-profit organizations in this country. One of those issues is the need to deal with advocacy. I find it very interesting that somehow this has become almost a taboo thing because of restrictions from Revenue Canada because of the charitable status.
 I do not know why it is that the notion of advocacy has taken on this very partisan, politicized meaning from the government's point of view. I am someone who has worked in the non-profit sector for many years before I was elected as a city councillor and then as an MP, so I am very familiar with the non-profit sector and how important it is in community development and building healthy communities. Advocacy is very much a part of that.
Even when organizations have charitable status, they should be able to do advocacy. There is nothing wrong with advocating for the people we represent and for whom we are working. This is particularly true in my riding of Vancouver East where we have many people who are very vulnerable and at risk, whether they are homeless, living far below the poverty line or drug users who have been very marginalized by our health care system and by criminal enforcement. Many organizations do incredible work right on the front line in helping people, not only with their daily needs of surviving and going up against the system, but also in advocating for people's rights.
To me, this is a very important function and a very important responsibility that is part of our civil society. It is part of our non-profit structure and part of the history that we have in the way not-for-profits work in this country.
Some not-for-profits simply deliver service and programs, which is exemplary and, of course, needs to be done. However, as I said in my earlier remarks, they and all groups lack stable, long-term and core funding. It is so hard for so many organizations now to survive. People are relying on whatever private donations they can get. 
It is interesting to note that in the United States there is a much bigger system of private foundations that do provide huge support to charitable and not-for-profit organizations. In Canada, we have had more of a history of different levels of government recognizing the importance and value of non-profit organizations and actually providing public funding to them. That is a very legitimate thing and it is a very wise use of taxpayer dollars. 
However, since the 1990s, every group we talk to, and I could talk to any number of groups in my community, whether it is women's organizations, housing organizations or people involved in legal services, they have all faced unbelievable cutbacks over the years. The erosion of government funding, particularly core funding, has had a very dramatic impact on the non-profit sector. It has left people scrambling to find little bits and pieces of money from this foundation or that foundation. Sometimes it is a matter of $5,000 or $10,000 to keep themselves going.
I wanted to raise that issue during the debate on the bill because it seems to me that the bill is so focused on the regulatory approach for non-profits that it is missing the huge issue of what we need to be addressing for the non-profit sector in Canada.
I think it is very unfortunate that we are debating this bill that was first introduced in 2004. It has certainly had a long history. Here we are debating this bill that lays out this mega-regime of Robert's Rules of Order and says that everybody is going to come under this regime.
What we should be discussing and what we should be doing, particularly in these economic times when so many people are falling behind and so many people who previously did not rely on organizations like food banks, legal aid or organizations that do advocacy, is helping those people who are now having to turn to those organizations to get the help that they need.
We are certainly now entering a very critical period in Canadian society where the economic recession is having this incredible impact on communities, people and families where before perhaps they were completely self-sufficient and they did not require the help and assistance.
One of the problems that we are facing in our community is the cuts in legal aid. There are a number of non-profit organizations that deliver legal aid services. In the best of times their parameters were fairly restrictive. There is money that goes from the federal government to the provinces for legal aid. This is very much a part of our judicial system and all Canadians should be guaranteed the right to access and opportunity to legal representation. 
However, as these cutbacks have just come wave after wave, we are now facing a situation in B.C. where low income communities are being hit particularly hard. The organizations that are there, whether it is the UBC Law Student's Society that provides legal aid or the legal aid system itself, they are now under severe pressure trying to meet the demand as more and more people, who may have previously had their own resources to deal with the judicial system, are now unable to do so. That is a very serious situation.
In looking at this bill I know that other colleagues of mine in the NDP are very concerned about this bill. We are concerned about the scope of the bill. We are concerned about how far reaching it is and how it may dampen enthusiasm and the involvement of people. When we read the bill, the things that are required of people individually, as well as the organization in question if it falls under the mandate of this bill, are quite incredible.
We have a lot of concern about how broad a net this bill casts in terms of creating a system where organizations basically have very little choice to perform in a way that maybe they have evolved over the years. It seems to me that this idea that there is only one standard to uphold accountability or transparency is really quite false.
The fact is the vast majority of non-profit organizations are very democratic. They are transparent. They are accountable. It is in their very nature to do that because their very reason for being is based on community service. It is based on service to society.
Therefore, these organizations tend to be very open and straightforward about what they are doing. They have nothing to hide. It is not like there is some big multinational corporation that is involved in goodness knows what kind of financial transactions and trying to skim and move money, such as what we see in this financial crisis that we have before us now. Non-profit organizations are not really in that kind of game. They are in service to the community. Even the large organizations, whether they be the Red Cross or others, have a different kind of mandate. 
One of the concerns that we have is that it may be necessary for us to see a framework of regulations that would ensure better accountability for some of these large organizations that do engage in business opportunities. It seems that this is now being cast over every organization that falls within the scope and the mandate of the bill, so we have a problem with that.
I did want to express the concerns that we have about the bill, but most of all I want to thank the incredible non-profit organizations in my community that provide an amazing service. I do not think I could do the job that I do if they were not doing what they do. We work in very close partnership with each other. We all need to recognize these organizations and what they do in our communities.
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Vancouver East for sharing with us some of the great work being done in her riding by non-profit associations. 
Halifax is the home of many non-profit associations as well. One, for example, is the Ecology Action Centre, which is Nova Scotia's largest environmental organization. Since 1971 the EAC has been working to build a healthier, more sustainable Nova Scotia, and it is a strong and respected voice in our province on environmental issues.
My question is actually about funding for non-profit organizations. She talked about the regulation of non-profit organizations. One strong program at the EAC was the steer clean program, which was a federal initiative to retire old vehicles which were bad polluters in exchange for sustainable transportation incentives like a free bus pass or discounts on bikes. This innovative program was cancelled last spring, so that means we have lost greenhouse gas reductions in our province, the EAC lost a staff person, and the Ecology Action Centre lost some of its capacity to be a strong voice for sustainable transportation.
I wonder if the hon. member would share with us her thoughts on today's focus of the debate, which is about changes to governance of non-profit organizations as opposed to a real discussion on ensuring that non-profit organizations can continue to do the excellent work that they are doing.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, the member for Halifax has a long history of working with non-profit organizations in her own community so I look forward to hearing her comments in the House later.
The particular organization that she gave as an example is doing yeoman service, trying to work in a grassroots way to bring people along, to educate them, and to provide real alternatives to them. The Auditor General's report from the Environment Commissioner slammed the government for its complete lack of progress on climate change and pointed out that there is no transparency or accountability and very negligible improvements. The local organization in Halifax is really doing the job, but yet it is struggling for funds.
The member has really pinpointed the problem with the bill. We are dealing with a sort of regulatory regime about governance when most of these organizations are doing just fine. We are completely missing the need that they have which is to have some financial security so they can continue their work. Members in the NDP will continue to raise this because it is an important priority. We understand the importance of the work of these organizations.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, it is a true pleasure to speak today to Bill C-4, a way to assist non-profit organizations.
I also want to compliment you, Madam Speaker, for being the Deputy Speaker. I know Victoria is very proud, being from a neighbouring riding.
Mahatma Gandhi said that poverty is one of the worst forms of violence. We know that it robs a person's soul, and sometimes robs the desire to live, particularly if there is no hope or see any way or opportunity to actually get out of a poverty trap. In response to that, we have some 161,000 Canadian not-for-profit organizations, and 19,000 of them are under federal jurisdiction.
I would also like to salute that this represents some 12 million volunteers. These volunteers donate some two billion hours of their time free of charge every year. That is a staggering testament to the courage and charitableness of Canadians from coast to coast. There are about two million full time equivalents of people who are hired and who work in the not-for-profit sector, which represents some 11% of our economic workforce.
The budget actually neglected this very important part of our economy. The fact of the matter is those volunteers, those NGOs have a huge duplicative effect. Where they have that duplicative effect is in helping those who are most underprivileged in our society, giving them a hand out, and enabling them to be able to elevate themselves.
 They feed those who are hungry. They clothe those who do not have proper clothing. They care for those who are sick. They donate their time to enable our environmental and cultural heritage to live on into the future. They are Canadian heroes, unsung, quietly going about their work, day in and day out, week in and week out, year after year.
In this bill, and in the budget, it neglects to deal with some of the fundamental problems that the NGO community faces in Canada today. To showcase some of the great non-governmental organizations we have, I started up a website. It is called Canadaaid.ca. I would encourage viewers out there to check out Canadaaid.ca.
This website actually showcases people here at home who are doing work in Canada and abroad, people like Gerald and Nicole Hartwig, who are building schools abroad.
 The Compassionate Resource Warehouse and Dell Wergeland, who you know, Madam Speaker, being from Victoria, do an extraordinary job. They have sent hundreds of millions of dollars worth of needed supplies to those who are most impoverished in the world. They have done it all with volunteers, many of whom are actually our veterans.
What charitable organizations face is an overweening and excessive degree of reporting. They all agree that fair and accountable reporting must occur. Imagine being part of a small NGO, a small group of volunteers working hard to help those who are impoverished. What happens is they often have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars that has to come from their donations to pay for the overweening administrative obligations that are placed upon them, much of which is unnecessary.
The fact of the matter is that the CRA, Revenue Canada, is disconnected from the NGO community. It has not sat down and listened to their needs and worked with them to enable them to have a proper structure that they can report fairly, openly and transparently as to what moneys they are receiving and how they use them.
I would strongly encourage the Minister of National Revenue to sit down and encourage the bureaucrats to work with the NGO community. This is absolutely essential, if we are not going to choke the ability of NGOs to work and help those who are most underprivileged.
Also, I do not think the Canadian public is aware of this, but Revenue Canada had cuts, particularly in the charities branch. What happened was, in response to that, Revenue Canada let go a lot of its employees and rehired people who had less professional capabilities. What happened as a result of that is burnout amongst the people who could not handle the work, and charities were not able to engage Revenue Canada in a meaningful way.
The other side of this is right now we have overzealous members of Revenue Canada fanning out across our country. They are going after charitable organizations tooth and nail. They are driving them into the ground so much that they will have to close their doors. In fact, some of them have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in accounting and legal fees to simply answer the questions that Revenue Canada has asked, most of which are completely useless and unnecessary.
In their zealous desire to go after these charitable organizations, they do not see are the downstream effects. They are hurting the very people who help those in need. Charitable organizations do the lion's share to help those who are most needy. Governments are not going to do it, and in many cases it should not. However, what has filled the gap are these large numbers of charitable organizations, working with minimal amounts of funds to do great things and massively expand the care they provide to those who need it.
This has absolutely become a crisis. I know full well that charitable groups in my riding are about to close their doors. The impact on those who are most impoverished will be quite significant.
I strongly recommend that the government implement the solutions in this bill, which are necessary for a streamlined, effective way to ensure that transparency within the NGO community.
The other thing the government ought to do is enable people to donate more to charitable groups. Right now, during this time of great need, during this time of the economic turmoil across our country, there has never been a greater time to encourage donations to the NGOs, which help those most in need. Right now for charitable donations up to $200, we receive a 15% tax credit. For donations over $200, it is 29%. It makes more sense, and I have a motion is this regard, to ensure that charitable organizations receive the same tax benefits as political parties. Donations to political parties receive much higher tax benefits than those given to charitable organizations. Why not make them equivalent?
Alternatively, the government could allow Canadians to donate up to $15,000 to charitable groups and receive a 50% tax credit. Anything above $15,000 would go back to the 29% tax credit, which is in effect now, for donating more than $200. This would inject adrenalin into the charitable donations. In fact, when we asked Canadians, and there were some interesting studies on this, if they were able to get a higher tax credit, would they donate more, 53% said yes. Why does the government not do this? It would provide a significant benefit, at minimal cost, with a huge multiplier effect for those most in need.
The other thing that could be done, and my colleague mentioned it before, is allow foundations in Canada to develop in a more fruitful way. The United States has much larger foundations, with more money. We could do that in our country. This would provide a huge benefit for the civil society sector to utilize funds to help those most in need and it would also to invest in the cultural and environmental legacy in our great nation, which would be beneficial for all of us.
Do members not find it an affront to common decency that people who make less than $20,000 a year pay tax? How do people survive on less than $20,000 a year? They cannot and as a result they get caught in the poverty trap. Why do we not amend the tax code? I know we could this because I spoke to our finance critic about it when we were in government. I have a private member's bill called the “Canadian low-income supplement”. The bill would ensure that people would get a $2,000 rebate, cash in hand, if they made less than $20,000 a year. That number would decline to zero at $40,000. This would put real money into the hands of those most in need. I strongly encourage the government to pursue that course of action.
On EI, my colleagues have provided solutions to increase EI benefits and decrease the amount of time that one has to work. I also encourage the following.
 For those who have lost their jobs, we do not know whether the government will provide EI benefits for them. Just because those people lost their jobs before the budget went through, does it not make sense that those people, who have been victims of the global economic tsunami, should have the same economic benefit changes in the budget? We would like to see the government come clean on that. We think it is an act of fundamental fairness. Whether people lose their jobs next month or lost them two months ago, these people need help. They do not have money to survive.
My colleagues have introduced some very sensible changes, for a two year period of time. Those changes would help those most in need, and those people spend the money. They need to put food on the table. They need medications when they are ill. They need to pay rent. They need a roof over their heads. They need to pay their mortgages.
Furthermore, if people have houses and have lost their jobs, why are they ineligible to receive EI? They have mortgage payments. What are they going to do? Sell their house, and go where? Are they going to go on the street? Are they going to find a place to rent in our community, as an example, where the available rental units are less than one per cent? They cannot do it.
Our objective is to enable people to maintain as much of a reasonable standard of living as they possibly can during this economic turmoil so they will not be hurt, and hurt they can be, hurt they are.
On the issue of first nations, I have five first nations communities in my riding. In some of those communities, in which they have some really superb first nations leadership, the conditions in which those people live is frankly inhumane. Whether it is the Pacheedaht reserve or some others, in Sooke or Beecher Bay, we have some great leaders. Those people need to be encouraged, yet they are not, in part because of the following.
First, the government put a two per cent cap on funding for first nations communities. Does that make sense when the population of first nations communities is growing by more than two per cent? That does not even take into consideration the increase cost of our standard of living. It does not account for inflation. In effect, because of this cap, they are going backward.
Inflation alone is tearing away at that. Increased population growths will also tear away at that, so there is less money today than there was five, six or seven years ago. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is fundamentally important that the government release that two per cent cap and give the moneys needed, with a multiplier that is congruent with inflation plus population increases.
The implication of not doing this is the following. 
Do members know that aboriginals families, and this is particularly offensive, receive between $2,000 and $9,000 less per child than non-aboriginal families? Why? What does that mean? It means that those children cannot have books. They cannot get computers. They do not get other school supplies. They cannot hire teachers. The schools are overcrowded. The infrastructure collapses. Some of the schools are toxic. We would not want to see any child trying to study in those schools. Frequently there are not even enough schools to train the kids. How can these children, many of whom are living in impoverished circumstances, get out of that poverty trap?They cannot.
I would also like to see the government look at the Indian Act and work with the AFN and other groups to modify the Indian Act, which is a racist document and a rock around the neck of aboriginal communities in their desire to develop. How can they possibly develop if we have that type of act? They have many more hurdles to overcome in order to develop, so how can they take care of themselves?
There is fabulous leadership in Chief Gordon Planes in Sooke and Chief Russ Chipps in Beecher Bay. They have some great initiatives that they would like to pursue, but they cannot because of the Indian Act and the obstacles it presents to them.
I was on the Pacheedaht reserve in my riding a little while ago. I could put my fist through the walls. There is mould, they are toxic and falling apart. This is in our Canada. Canadians often do not see this because we have to take a bit of a detour to look at it. I ask them to please look at this. See what is in our neighbourhoods and communities. Look at what we have in our country. They will find conditions rival to that in third world nations half a world away.
This is our Canada and it is a pox on our houses that this is allowed to continue. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be addressed as issues of fundamental fairness and basic humanity. I would like to see the Minister of Indian Affairs go to these schools and clinics, take a look at the conditions in which these people live. I would like him to say that this cannot continue and work with first nations leaders to resolve this. Many of these reserves have extraordinary natural resources that can be developed, but it must be allowed to happen. 
On the schooling issue, while there was some money for infrastructure for schools, which I complement the government on, they also need money for soft costs such as for the teachers, books, computers and access to schools. The children in the Pacheedaht reserve have to travel hours into soup to go to school, which means they cannot avail themselves of normal child activities and programs such as music, physical education and team sports that help to build them as they go through life.
It is fundamentally important for the government to grasp this. We are willing to work. We have some great people in the Liberal Party, and in all parties, who are very willing to work with the government to implement the solutions to address these issues, which are human and critical and which must be resolved as an act of basic humanity.
The public expects us to come in here and do things quickly, which we would all love to do. The frustration that I think all of us in the House feel comes from the desire and our willingness to address the concerns of our citizens, meeting the glacial pace in which things move around here. In fact, they move somewhere between glacial and full stop. That is how fast things move. However, the implication of that is the failure to address some very critical things. In 1998 the House passed a resolution for a head start program for children. This is the most fundamental and easiest way to have an important impact on our children.
In the last minute and a half I have, I want to talk about international affairs.
 There are some wonderful people at CIDA. However, the government needs to resolve an internal issue in coordination. The treasury board needs to change in order to liberate CIDA so it may work on the necessary international development projects. Our government needs to look outside of itself and understand that Canadians have the willingness, desire and ability to deal with our fundamental and large international challenges, rooted, in part, in the millennium development goals and those objectives that we signed onto.
The three Cs, corruption, conflict and a lack of capacity, are not dealt with adequately internationally for many reasons. The failure to do that causes impoverished countries to continue in their poverty tracts. We have an opportunity to tap into Canada's capacity and the willingness of Canadians to donate their services to build up capacity in developing countries. We need to develop integrated plans such as building up primary health care systems in developing countries. Rather than looking at HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, we need to work on building an integrated public health care strategy. We know the simple things have the most effective bang for the buck in development and improving population health. Corruption has to be dealt with by improving the public service. We have the ability to transform and translate our public service abilities to these countries.
In closing, we have a great ability within this House and our country to deal with the fundamental challenge of poverty here at home and abroad. I strongly encourage the government to work with the rest of us to tackle this inscrutable enemy of humankind.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member who talked about a number of different things. He elaborated on the slowness that legislation moves through the House. 
We are talking today about the Canada not-for-profit corporations bill. He spoke very little about that, but I want to ask him a question on it. Does he support the phasing out of the old legislation, the Canada Corporations Act, and providing a phase-in to the new act? It would help the not-for-profit sector. It is a good move. It updates the legislation. Will he help in moving the legislation along quickly or is he going to talk about a lot of other things and cause a slow glacial movement of legislation in the House?
The other question regards first nations. The member was involved with the former Liberal government for 13 long dark years and things did move very slowly. In my riding I have an excellent relationship with the Kwantlen First Nation, which for decades asked for help to stop the erosion of McMillan Island falling into the Fraser River. The former Liberal government was asked numerous times for help but it did not help. Again it was a very slow glacial movement. However, within months of our becoming the government in 2006, that problem was solved.
On the residential schools apology, again, the first nations were waiting for an apology. That apology happened under our government. I think the member is noticing a dramatic change in speeding up good legislation. With regard to matrimonial rights for first nations women, I think the member voted against that. 
Maybe he could share why he is involved with a legacy of slowdown. Will he now support a government that is getting it done?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I want to correct the hon. member. I was in the Liberal government for a year and a half, which was after I had been on his side for 10 years, but he might not have been around at that time.
On the issue of Bill C-4, we compliment the government on bringing forward changes to the Canada Corporations Act. That act went back to 1917. However, we want to make sure that the legislation contains changes that will liberate the NGOs and enable them to do the wonderful work that they do, and that it is not a Gordian knot that introduces numerous other administrative hurdles and obstacles that costs them a lot of money. We will move this legislation forward but we want to make sure that it contains the effective solutions to liberate the not-for-profit sector, not administrative requirements that would hamper their ability to do their job, which would cause them to move at a glacial pace.
On the issue of first nations, it has been extremely frustrating for first nations communities to see many of the actions of the government. The Conservatives have done some good things and I give them credit for that, but the government has not done anything on some of the fundamental issues of investing in things that enable first nations communities to take care of themselves. 
There was an example in the long list of solutions I was trying to give to the government in my speech. The 2% cap on first nations funding must be lifted. With inflation and with the population growth rate which is much higher than 2%, it is actually eroding the funding capabilities of first nations to help themselves.
I would ask my hon. colleague and his government to implement those solutions and the others in my speech.
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, there was some great information in the member's speech about the strength of the voluntary sector and the not-for-profit sector in Canada.
I want to share a story from my riding. The Nova Scotia--Gambia Association is a non-profit development organization based in Canada, but it works with West African partners to pursue initiatives for equitable and sustainable futures for youth. Every year in Halifax the NSGA holds an African night. There is African food, culture, music and wonderful speakers. It is an excellent event. I have attended it. It holds this event because the money it receives from CIDA is not enough to fund the great work it is doing in West Africa.
Does the member agree that while we do need to consider ways to strengthen the regulations regarding not-for-profit organizations, we should simultaneously be having discussions about secure funding so that this work can continue?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, there are many NGOs in this country that do great work. I encourage everyone who is listening to visit the website canadaaid.ca. It lists Canadian NGOs working here at home and abroad, such as the one my hon. friend mentioned. They are doing superb jobs.
The first thing that the government could do and what is perhaps more important is to enable the NGOs to generate more money themselves. They could do that with the tax changes I mentioned. It would actually take pressure off the government to fund more by enabling citizens to donate more. As I said before, 53% of Canadians would like to donate more if there was a more attractive tax credit. That is critically important.
To address the member's other question, the government should work with the NGOs to ensure there is a transparent and functional accounting system that does not drown the NGOs in red tape.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for indicating that he and his party are going to support the bill. We appreciate it because we think it has a lot of value.
I know that my colleague pays attention to detail most every time he speaks and I appreciate that. I wonder about the suggestions the member had about the EI benefits and other changes that he sees could have been added to the budget. I am sure he would like to separate himself from his colleagues in the NDP who never seem to come to the House with a price on the things that they want. Perhaps the member might be able to present some pricing for the ideas that he has suggested today. He could get his point across a little better that way but also separate himself from the NDP members who never seem to attach a cost to their wish list. The hon. member knows that there is not an endless supply of money and it is good to know what it is going to cost up front when an idea comes forward.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question from my friend. I know that in his area of Prince George many of his constituents have lost their jobs in the forestry sector. I worked up there for many years in the hospital. It is a tragedy for those towns to go through those ups and downs because they are dependent in part on the resource sector.
We know that for every $1 that is donated the multiplier effect is $7 to $10. If the government were to provide a more lucrative tax credit to the individual donor, we would see a vast increase in monies that are available because the multiplier effect is great. It would actually save some of the taxpayers' money that the government uses in some of its programs. The principle behind it is one which I know my hon. friend very much adheres to as we do. That principle is to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves. We should maximize the capabilities that we have in our citizenry. We should ensure that people have the tools to do the great things they can do and make sure that government is not getting in the way.
That is why we would like to see this bill have an administrative structure that listens to the NGO community and adopts a framework that is easy to implement, that is open, transparent and has true accountability. My friend from Victoria, Henry McCandless, a former assistant deputy minister in the Office of the Auditor General said that true accountability is the obligation on the part of senior government officials and elected officials to tell the public what they are doing, why they are doing it and how much it is going to cost and then tell them what they have done with that in the future.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations.
I am surprised. Earlier, I was listening to the Liberal member answer a question from the Conservative member. Each was accusing the other. The Liberal member said that the Conservatives move at a slow, glacial pace. The Conservatives said that, in their day, the Liberals moved even more slowly, more glacially. Now that they are in bed together, I can only speculate as to whether things are still slow and glacial, but it always makes me smile. 
People have been asking for new not-for-profit corporation legislation since 1999. I will go into detail later on. We will support the bill. Nevertheless, we want our House of Commons colleagues to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. Under section 92 of the Constitution, the provinces are responsible for management of the social economy, volunteering and community activities. All matters of a “merely local or private nature” fall under the exclusive purview of Quebec and the provinces. 
As proud defenders of the Quebec nation, we must ensure that this bill does not encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Not-for-profit organizations operating exclusively in Quebec are already governed by Part III of Quebec's Companies Act. We just want to make sure that this bill will not prevent not-for-profit organizations from operating. 
It is important to note that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction only over organizations that do not have provincial objects. Subsection 11 of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically gives the provinces jurisdiction over “the incorporation of companies with provincial objects”. Currently, section 154 of the Canada Corporations Act states that the federal minister may grant an organization the right to incorporate if it is carrying on “objects, to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like objects”.
This is important, because not-for-profit organizations are currently governed by the Canada Corporations Act, which is why we are amending that act. This section pertains to organizations that come under the legislative authority of Parliament. It appears that clause 4 of the new bill would not require a not-for-profit organization to state its purpose in its articles of incorporation. Clearly, it could be confusing if the organization's purpose is not stated. Inevitably, the result could be interference in the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions.
It will therefore come as no surprise that, even though we support this bill, we would like to see it go to committee so that our colleagues understand the situation and we make sure that the bill as introduced does not conflict with section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. We believe that the bill should be amended to limit its scope to not-for-profit organizations that operate or have offices in more than one province or whose purpose comes under federal jurisdiction, in order to respect the spirit of part II of the current Canada Corporations Act, which pertains to not-for-profit organizations.
That is our goal, as worthy representatives of the Quebec nation, in order to protect the interests of Quebeckers and especially not-for-profit organizations operating in Quebec.
Earlier, someone mentioned the slow movement of legislation. If we look back at the history of this bill, we can see how we have come to this point in 2009. The Canada Business Corporations Act creates the frame of reference, as I said earlier. In recent years, stakeholders have expressed concern that this act is out of date and no longer meets the needs of today's not-for-profit sector.
The stakeholders publicly asked for reforms to the legislation and in 1999, the task force on the voluntary sector, created by the federal government, asked that improvements be made to the regulatory framework governing the sector. Industry Canada's proposal aimed at updating the Canada Business Corporations Act is part of the task force's plan.
As far back as July 2000, Industry Canada produced a document entitled Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law. After that document was published, the department organized a series of round table discussions in various cities across the country in order to examine the ideas presented in the document. Following the round tables, the government thought it would be a good idea to make concrete proposals. Thus, we can see that some questioning began in 1999 and discussions began in 2000. On November 15, 2004, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-21. Of course, since the Liberal government's reign was so short lived, the legislation was never passed.
On June 13, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament, the Conservatives took essentially the same bill and reinstated it as Bill C-62. In the end, the bill did not pass because the Conservatives, who had promised fixed election dates, decided to force an election. Unfortunately for all those waiting for this act to be modernized, the bill lapsed. On December 3, a similar bill was introduced at first reading by the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), a Conservative minister. Then the government decided to prorogue the House and the bill died. Finally, on January 28, Bill C-4 was introduced and will be studied against that backdrop.
I can understand that the Liberals and Conservatives accuse one another of moving at a slow, glacial pace. However, for all those waiting for changes to this law, I hope we will act as quickly as possible and move forward. The Bloc's only request is that the Constitution be respected so that not-for-profit organizations falling under Quebec jurisdiction can truly be viable and not be jeopardized by this bill.
That is what we will do and we will be pleased to participate in all the debates.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments with regard to Bill C-4.
Prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I, as a chartered accountant, had the opportunity to have a number of not-for-profit organizations as clients. As well, in my work in one of the corporate employs that I had in my early career, I was actually involved in the work which introduced the Canada Business Corporations Act and moved it from the Canada Corporations Act and all the continuance provisions.
I am sure all members will look at the bill and wonder how they will put their minds around the document. I took the opportunity to look at the details. I suspect that if I were to cross out everything that was boilerplate, mirroring the rules, the provisions and the features of the bill that are required under the Canada Business Corporations Act for for-profit corporations, the bill would be about quarter of the size that it is.
The bill also contains a number of interesting provisions, and one in which I will take specific interest and hope to be involved in at committee stage is with regard to regulations. I will comment on that in a brief moment.
For the record, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the bill, as I would most bills in the nature of building on an existing foundation of corporate governance, whether it be share capital or non-share capital, profit or not-for-profit. 
This is a very important bill that we move forward to committee. I very much doubt that the members themselves at this point will be able to speak in very much detail to the risks, the rewards, the benefits or the pitfalls that may exist in the bill without hearing from the experts and the stakeholders in all sectors across the governance model.
However, it is at second reading where all hon. members get an opportunity to raise specific issues or maybe to recommend to the committee that these are areas of interest or of concern. I hope the committee will bring forward the appropriate witnesses so that the questions or the issues can be elaborated on, not only by the government and by departmental officials, but also have the higher level interventions of experts and representatives across the governance spectre to ensure t there are no hidden or unintended consequences. 
That is always the problem when we get bills which are substantively omnibus bills to the extend that they do have consequential amendments to a large number of other existing legislation in Canada. 
If we were to take all of the bills that this particular bill touches, we would probably have a very large pile of reading to do, because some of the changes that occur in here cannot be understood in terms of the amendment being proposed in the bill to another bill. That amendment needs to be read in the context of the bill which it is amending. We need to know, if this is plugged in to some other piece legislation, whether it make sense.
 These are the kinds of things we rely on: the departmental officials to give us the assurance. We have the responsibility for the legislation but we second that responsibility to a great extent in bills like this to the departmental officials and to the experts. We also seek the input of other witnesses, which helps us to discharge that responsibility for the legislation without being the experts ourselves. 
We cannot be experts in all things but we can ask reasonable, fair questions so it can be explained to us. In some cases I like to ask the experts in committee to explain it to me so that my grandmother would understand. I want the explanation in plain and simple language because, if our legislation is not in plain and simple language, when people involved in a broad range of not-for-profit organizations see this, their first reaction will be to wonder whether they will be swamped with more paperwork from government requirements. They will want to know whether it will be cost-effective, whether they will need to hire lawyers to help guide them through the pitfalls in which they may find themselves, whether their organization will be put at risk if they have to come under the rules, whether it will affect the way they do business, and whether they will be subject to other exposures to risk from other stakeholders without knowing who they are. 
All hon. members have a wealth of opportunity to maybe find a little nugget within legislation such as this to consult with not-for-profit organizations in their own community, to ask whether they are even aware of this or if they have an advocacy group on behalf of all the groups across the country in the same or similar businesses that will be there, and to encourage them to come out to the committee or to have representation at the committee, and to let them know that it will not be at no cost to them. For us to do a good job and for us to have them there, we pay the cost to bring them here to ensure they have an opportunity to express the views, concerns or even the questions of these various groups and organizations.
My intervention is maybe an invitation to all hon. members to not be reluctant to open this document and to determine whether there is a nugget in which they can champion or encourage groups and organizations with which they are familiar or with which they have had some undertakings.
One of the areas I will be looking is the responsibilities of directors and officers. This is an important aspect of governance life in Canada. The corporate sector at large has had a lot of difficulty with conflicts of interest, fraud, embezzlement and the benefits to people as a consequence of their role in an organization.
Bill C-4 also addresses the whole area of directors and officers. I think all hon. members would agree that the accountability, the transparency and the openness are important aspects. Part 9 of the bill outlines the duty for directors and officers to manage and supervise management . It addresses the number of directors needed. Sometimes there are closed shops and sometimes there are too many and the work does not get done. The qualifications are extremely important, and members may want to look at that.
For directors in the not-for-profits, there are guidelines and things for notice to directors ceasing to hold office, removal of directors, statements of directors, how to fill a vacancy, changing the number, et cetera. The list is very long. The bill addresses those kinds of issues. It would give organizations the opportunity to realize the extent to which they have a responsibility. Each organization under this governance model would provide, if they follow and comply with the legislation, a comfort level to all Canadians from the standpoint of being able to understand that the organization has rules to follow, that they can trust the organization to follow the rules and that there is a compliance mechanism in place to ensure that happens.
The other aspect is bylaws and members. In my role as a member and currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, it does cover the bylaws and members. It basically deals with information about who the members are, what their involvement is and a variety of other things. This is a very important aspect. I am very interested in this from the standpoint of potential privacy issues, potential cyber crime, identity theft, et cetera.
Finally, I simply want to make a comment with regard to the regulations. There is a section in the bill on regulations which has to do with the coming into force of the legislation. It comes after the very last part of the bill. 
Members probably know that a bill will either say it comes into force upon receiving royal assent or it will say that it comes into force on the date designated by order in council. Usually when a bill requires regulations it will state on a date specified by order in council. 
 After we have dealt with a bill in the House of Commons at second reading, it goes to committee where committee members hear from experts and witnesses and departmental officials. The bill may be amended there. After the bill is voted on in committee, it comes back to the House for report stage where more amendments may be proposed by members who were not involved in the process at the committee stage. A vote is then held at that stage. A debate is held at third reading and another vote takes place. The bill will go to the Senate where it will go through virtually the same process.
One thing that is not done in the entire process of reviewing a piece of legislation like this bill is that we do not see the regulations. We do not see the regulations when we have to vote to make the bill law. The regulations are the details necessary to supplement or amplify the intent of the bill. Every regulation must be enabled, authorized, in the bill itself. 
Members will find that in this legislation there are a substantial number of regulations required which may take six months or a year to be implemented. I know of a bill where three years after its passage, the regulations still have not been fully implemented. The bill as we passed it in this place is not fully functional.
In the past I was chair of the joint Senate and Commons committee on the scrutiny of regulations, but I continue to be a member of that committee in this current Parliament.
 I want to follow this particular bill. Even though the bill provides a whole section on definitions to guide the understanding of the bill, one of the requirements is that the governor in council define terms used in the bill which have not been defined in the bill. If something is in the bill and it might require a definition, I do not understand why the definition would not be put in the bill and then the regulation would not be needed.
 I want to particularly follow that one because it is the first time I have ever seen it. I want to understand why it is that someone thinks something has to be defined in the regulations so that the bill is clear. When we already anticipate today that it may be a problem, why not just put it in the bill? I look through some of these things as a member of Parliament. 
As I indicated, I will be supporting the bill. However, I need more answers as a legislator before I can enthusiastically endorse every aspect of it. Quite frankly, it is going to take some time before I become fully conversant in all of the nuances of the bill because there are many other pieces of legislation that I would have to ask the Library of Parliament to get for me so that I could look at this in context.
This is a situation which I would characterize as a mission impossible for members of Parliament by themselves and even by their caucuses. They need the experts and the officials. We need to make sure that they know that we are interested in having these matters explained to us, the raison d'être as it were, so that we can do a good job as parliamentarians.
Mario Silva: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his fine remarks. He outlined quite well some of the issues of concern with Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations.
All of us have not-for-profit organizations within our own ridings. In my riding of Davenport there are excellent organizations such as the Working Women Community Centre, the Abrigo Centre and the Working Skills Centre. These not-for-profit agencies deal mainly with immigrants and refugees, and help the vulnerable and those in need in our city. I congratulate them on all their fine work. I am sure the hon. member has many organizations in his own riding that he can also comment upon and thank.
Not-for-profit organizations are essential in our communities. They are the ones that deliver the real services. They are doing a tremendous amount of work for very low pay. They have difficulty raising money and it is not always easy to get funding from different levels of government, but they are doing incredible work. Certainly cities like Toronto would not be liveable and we would not have a country like we do have at the moment if it were not for these agencies.We have to do everything possible to help them out.
I share the comments of my colleague about whether this legislation is going to add to the burden of the not-for-profit agencies, whether it is going to add more red tape in terms of not streamlining the processes.
Maybe my hon. colleague could comment further on his concerns, which I share and are valid, about not burdening the not-for-profit organizations because they are doing tremendous work for Canada.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, it certainly does make me reflect on some of my experiences with the not-for-profit sector, particularly in the immigration services area, those that provide settlement services, ESL training, and a number of other services for new Canadians.
The money for these organizations generally comes from federal and provincial funding programs. They are quite rigidly set on the number of people being served, et cetera, and are very modest. Many of these organizations have very little opportunity to raise money elsewhere, and even if they do, the funding that they may get from the federal or provincial governments may be reduced because they have other sources of revenue. It is almost as though they cannot help themselves. They are stuck.
The most poignant example that I can recall is that Multicultural Services of Peel, when it existed, was approached by a union to organize. The union negotiators demanded that salary levels be increased substantially. That was the contract being sought. The organization had to hire a lawyer. One thing led to another and the organization folded up its tent and went away, because it had no control over what it could pay its people. The salary or compensation per employee in certain areas is designated in the funding package from the federal or provincial governments.
These organizations operate on a very narrow budget. There is no fat. It is very lean. A lot of people have asked me why one would want to start a not-for-profit organization. The fact is that it is efficient, it provides services, and it is not meant for growth.
 I am concerned about the burden on the organizations. I think we all should keep that in mind.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has done some phenomenal work in the financial sector and here in the House. I know he cares deeply for and has a great interest in non-profit organizations. What does he think ought to be done in terms of streamlining the system to enable non-profits to do their great work? Does he agree that we must ensure that this bill does not add an unbelievable amount of red tape which would crush the ability of NGOs to work, would draw resources away from the sharp edge of the care that they give to other people and would divert their attention to dealing with paperwork?
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, certainly there are examples in our legislative framework and some of the programs, and even the taxation models that we have, that take into account that one size does not fit all. I think that applies to the not-for-profit sector. There are some organizations that are very large, some that are very powerful, in terms of their influence not only on their own community but on the country as a whole. There are other organizations, however, that are very small and, as I indicated, they do not have the resources to do things. When I think of something like the GST, there are different methods to file a GST return which take into account the size or the volume of the business.
With regard to Bill C-4, I do not know whether there can be provisos. I think we should ask about it. There could be some exemptions. They may have to fall under the act. However, with regard to the reporting requirements, maybe there could be a quick method or maybe the smaller not-for-profit organizations could have some way of mitigating the increased costs that organizations inevitably would face.
[Interjection]
Mario Silva: Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree that we are quite fortunate to have in our caucus people who have been involved with many organizations throughout their lifetime.
He spoke to the importance of immigrant settlement, which I think is quite fundamental as well. Our esteemed colleague from Beaches--East York  is one of the founders of COSTI, which does an incredible amount of good work across the GTA in dealing with immigrant settlement. This exemplary work is something we should be congratulating as well. We need to ensure that when legislation such as this comes into law it does not burden those organizations but that it helps them. We need to be supportive of them just as they have been supportive of so many communities and so many people in need.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, it sounds as though there is a theme going on here, and I tend to agree. However, as an accountant, let me say that there are two ways to improve the bottom line: one is to increase income levels, revenues; the other is to reduce expenses. They both come out to a desired result.
With regard to the not-for-profits, many of their problems pre-exist this bill. This bill would make their situation a little worse.
 I can say that in my experience the employees of not-for-profit organizations generally involved in the social services sector are the lowest paid and they do the most important work. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that with the amount of money allocated by the Government of Canada and the provinces, people who are helping people be better people and help families in need cannot be paid a fair a reasonable salary. It means that the turnover rate in this sector is also very high. That is not good for Canada either.
 We have to advocate not only for some assistance in this bill for those who would be under duress because of additional paperwork and administrative work, which has nothing to do with delivering services, but also to look at the funding levels provided in existing federal programs for these important groups and organizations so that they can sustain a solid staff which has good experience and continuity. That experience and expertise makes a great deal of difference in affecting the lives of Canadians in need.
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Mississauga South for shedding some light on some of the issues to which we should be alert, regarding the reform of legislation governing not-for-profits.
I am happy to also join the debate today on Bill C-4, an act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations. As others have pointed out, this bill is very similar to a bill introduced in 2004 that sought to streamline and reform the regulatory framework of federally incorporated not-for-profits. It seems to me that many of the concerns at that time remain and for that reason I think this bill needs some careful examination.
With job losses growing on a daily basis and our social support networks struggling, the work of non-profit organizations is needed now more than ever. Non-profits in my riding of Halifax provide front line services, advocate for those in need, research new ideas, and protect and promote local culture. It is worth noting that smaller provinces like Nova Scotia actually have higher numbers of non-profits relative to their populations.
I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the work that these organizations are doing to make this point really clear. Canada's non-profit and voluntary sector is the second largest in the world after the Netherlands. There are an estimated 161,000 non-profits and charities in Canada, and half of these are run entirely by volunteers. About 19,000 of those not-for-profits are incorporated under federal law. Two million people in Canada are employed by not-for-profits, making this sector one of the largest employers in Canada. The non-profit sector represents 7.8% of our GDP, which is larger than the auto and manufacturing sectors.
Legislative measures that seek to make it easier for these organizations to work are welcome. However, when looking at the proposals in Bill C-4, we have to ensure that any reforms help rather than hinder this vital sector. I have worked with a lot of non-profits in the past and when they have encountered problems with their governance structures, it hurts these organizations and can hurt them for years to come, but it can also devastate the local communities relying on those organizations.
Canadians can be proud about our place internationally. We have literally thousands of volunteers and workers running services in this country that we have all come to know well. The minister herself put it best when she was introducing this bill earlier in the week. She said:
 There is widespread recognition of the importance of strengthening Canada's not-for-profit sector, including the social purpose enterprises that form its backbone. These organizations are an important pillar of the economy as a whole. There are approximately 160,000 not-for-profit organizations operating in Canada. When universities, colleges and hospitals are included, the 2003 revenues of the sector were over $136 billion, up from $86 billion in 1997, a decade ago. 
I applaud the minister for pointing this out. 
However, when we take this bill to committee, we need to ensure that we consider this legislation with an eye to the diversity of non-profits across Canada. I applaud any attempt to respond to this sector's request to reform legislation, but let us ensure that we consider the impacts that any changes will have on any federally incorporated non-profit.
While we all share an appreciation of the work of these organizations, we would do well to remember that non-profit organizations are constantly faced with funding shortages. I hope that while we debate this bill, and this sector gains some attention in the House, that we keep funding top of mind. The bill, as presented, seeks to apply blunt regulatory reforms on all federally regulated non-profits. What is not present in the bill is accommodation for the diversity in both size and scope of the organizations in question.
While from a law-making standpoint a one-size-fits-all approach might seem a lot easier, it is not always in the best interests of the sectors affected. In consultations, representatives from the sector have outlined a number of regulatory concerns. This bill only deals with a narrow band of those issues. At the top of that list was securing long-term, stable financing, something that is not dealt with by Bill C-4. 
Many parliamentarians have been members of boards and non-profits, whether federally or provincially incorporated. Therefore, I am sure the need for stability is clear to them.
When non-profits can see that they will be funded consistently over a set number of years, their program can be more comprehensive and their financial planning can be less ad hoc and more accountable. This accountability is exactly what members of government have been pointing out as the major intention of Bill C-4. I am hopeful that this aspect will be considered appropriately.
It is worth pointing out that, whether it is an arts organization or a front line anti-poverty service provider, when funding is unpredictable or regulations are too complicated, they can put the work done in jeopardy. That in turn has a serious impact on the communities that are clients of the organization. In places like Halifax we cannot afford to have the work of these organizations hindered.
I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to some of these non-profit organizations that are doing great work in my riding and highlight the need for continued sustainable funding. The Ecology Action Centre has acted as a voice for Nova Scotia's environment for 35 years. In 1971 the EAC began working to build a healthier, more sustainable Nova Scotia. Today it has over a thousand members, 250 volunteers and staff, and 7 active teams and committees. Some of the amazing successes it has had included the launching of the first recycling program in Nova Scotia. Now Nova Scotia has a waste diversion rate higher than any industrialized nation.
The EAC has also successfully advocated for the protection of 25,000 acres of wilderness since 2004. It initiated and now delivers the HRM by-law restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides, reducing restrictive pesticide permits by 80% since 2004.
It has also created Nova Scotia's first working demonstration of a green office renovation and it recycled more than 125 pre-1995 cars through the steer clean program, thus helping to reduce air pollution by removing high polluting vehicles from the roads in Nova Scotia.
From the environment we move on to the issue of poverty. We have many amazing not-for-profit poverty organizations in the riding like Adsum for Women &amp; Children, a non-profit community based organization that has been active since 1983 in the entire Halifax region. Currently, there are three facilities run by Adsum. It operates Adsum House, which is an emergency shelter for women and children, and it has serviced about 12,000 women and their children since 1983. 
It also has Adsum Court which is a 24-unit apartment complex located in Dartmouth which is actually across the harbour from the Halifax riding. Adsum Court is a way to respond to the lack of safe and affordable housing in the community.
Finally, there is also Adsum Centre which is stage two supportive housing for women who are looking to achieve their personal independent living goals. I have done quite a bit of work with Adsum, with both the staff and the women at Adsum House and Adsum Centre. I have seen firsthand their amazing work which represents their values, that dignity, worth and potential of everyone is important.
We also have quite a few organizations working on the issue of housing, like the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association. Metro Non-Profit Housing Association assists single adults who have been homeless or are at risk of homelessness. It helps these adults create and maintain their homes. It does not just consider these homes a place to live. It wants it to be a place to call home so it strives to create housing units that are safe, secure and comfortable, a place where its tenants can feel at ease and feel at home. It actually supports the Shining Lights Choir, which is an amazing choir in Halifax made up of people who are homeless or who have experienced homelessness. It sings at quite a few different events and it is just an outstanding choir in the community.
Metro Non-Profit Housing Association actually talks about how some of its tenants have moved on to become entrepreneurs and some have even graduated from university. Another form of achievement, on move-in, about 65% of its tenants relied on social assistance but now only 25% because so many of its tenants have actually moved into the workforce once they achieved affordable, stable housing.
We are also very strong in arts in Halifax. I will raise the non-profit Halifax Dance as an example. It is firmly dedicated to the development of dance and movement through arts, education, performance and community development in an environment that values the diversity and potential of all individuals. Halifax Dance is amazing. It logs its volunteer hours. It actually calculated that last year its volunteers logged in over 2,000 volunteer hours. This year is its 35th anniversary and it is very excited because on February 21 it is having a black tie event with a very special guest, Karen Kain.
If you have ever been to Halifax, Madam Speaker, and you have driven past our Citadel, you may have been stopped by a line of horses crossing the street right in downtown Halifax, and if you looked to your right you would have actually seen a set of stables. This the Halifax Junior Bengal Lancers and it was founded as a non-profit in 1936. It brought life and character to central Halifax through its stables and horseback riding arenas on Bell Road. 
This area has been designated a heritage site recently. While the facilities are home to 30 horses and about 100 children and adults who take part in the horseback riding programs, they are also an integral part to Halifax's prime tourist area which includes the public gardens and Citadel Hill. We are proud of the fact that we actually have horses coming along the streets in downtown Halifax. It is really something.
Every fall in Halifax we also anxiously await the printing of one particular catalogue. This is a catalogue of movies featured in the upcoming Atlantic Film Festival. The festival is organized by the Atlantic Film Festival Association which is a not-for-profit organization. Members are committed to promoting and building a strong film industry in Atlantic Canada and presenting the best films from the region and from around the world to our local community. 
Under the umbrella of the non-profit association there are four main entities: the Atlantic Film Festival itself; Strategic Partners co-production conference; Viewfinders, which is an international film festival for youth and it is outstanding, if I do say so myself; and alFresco Film Festival, which is an outdoor film festival where movies are projected onto a large building at the waterfront. It is an extraordinary experience to sit by Halifax Harbour and watch movies outside under the light of the moon.
Some of the work that I have done in Nova Scotia with our non-profits has included work with NSRAP, the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project. This non-profit society was formed in 2000, and it strives to provide a coherent voice for gay, lesbian, bisexual, two-spirited, transsexual and transgender people, a group that it refers to as the rainbow community, throughout Nova Scotia. It is pan-Nova Scotian, but its main office is located in Halifax.
NSRAP, and its early iterations, has been working since 1995 throughout Nova Scotia as a voice for the rainbow community and its work is varied. It does political lobbying and legal work, and it does community building and research. It also tries to play a role as the public voice for the rainbow community in the media. I have had the opportunity to do quite a bit of work with its transgender committee, fighting for the rights of transgendered individuals in Nova Scotia and across Canada.
We are also the proud home of a strong and proud Black Nova Scotian community in Halifax and many communities around Nova Scotia. Many non-profits have formed over time to support and promote African-Nova Scotian issues, history and culture. One such organization is the Black Educators Association which was founded in 1969 to assist African-Nova Scotian communities develop strategies toward an equitable education system. 
Demonstrating a strong commitment as a grassroots organization, the BEA also coordinates its efforts with government departments, community groups, parent associations, school boards and other educational bodies. It has been involved in establishing many different projects and programs which include a bursary fund, regional educators program, advocates for black teachers, adult education and cultural academic enrichment programs.
Some of our non-profit work in Halifax also focuses on theatre and great literary works like the non-profit organization Shakespeare by the Sea. It is actually like a dream that has become a reality. It provides accessible, informative, spicy, edgy, thought-provoking productions of the works of William Shakespeare. It was started in 1994 when a group of artists were invited to perform in Point Pleasant Park on a volunteer basis and with no publicity, just word of mouth, these performances attracted an audience of over 2,500 in just one weekend. So with resounding support from the community and excellent critical notices the Shakespeare by the Sea Theatre Society was incorporated in 1994. 
Many of these performances are held in Point Pleasant Park, right on the banks of the harbour, but are also held on barges that float in the harbour. It has been really innovative in its performances.
 It has pioneered a walk-about theatre on the east coast, with landmark productions in the Martello Tower. It has done Martello Tower Hamlet and Martello Tower MacBeth. It did at Sandford Fleming Tower and Henry V and King Lear at the Halifax Citadel. It has been able to work with national landmarks in Halifax to showcase its performances. I have had the opportunity to see several of the performances over the years, and I applaud the work it does.
The riding of Halifax is not just the city of Halifax. It includes many other communities, like Sambro or Ketch Harbour. It also includes a very large community called Spryfield, which is home to several non-profit organizations that do great work, like the Boys and Girls Club of Spryfield, which was started because of a need for more programs for children and youth in the Spryfield community. It is a non-profit community based organization. It provides social recreational and educational programming for children and youth. The programs are identified and brought forward by community.
Also in Spryfield is the Urban Farm Museum Society. This society works to celebrate and promote the agricultural heritage of the community, which is now like a suburb of Halifax. It promotes rural traditions in urban places. The society has established a working farm in Spryfield, right in urban Halifax. It continues the agricultural tradition of this area.
The farm operates on three acres of old Kidston family fields. Through a variety of interpretative programs, hands-on workshops, demonstrations and school programs, the society produces food, offers a teaching venue and promotes local foods that are in season. It also does things like clearing pastures, rejuvenating the orchard and reconstructing old farm buildings. It is quite a feat considering this farm is in downtown Halifax.
What do all of these organizations have in common? They all need funding. They work hand to mouth. Sometimes they get funding from the federal government, sometimes from the provincial government. They rely on donations. They are going from season to season to see if they can manage to cobble together some programs to meet the needs of the communities they are trying to serve.
The lack of commitment to stable funding for non-profit organizations applies whether these organizations are provincially or federally incorporated. Bill C-4 does not address the issue of funding, but it is important to always have this in mind when we speak in the House and it is important to raise a discussion about sustainable funding for these organizations.
With regard to Bill C-4, the one-size-fits-all nature of the federal regulatory reforms could pose a significant problem for federally regulated non-profit organizations. Smaller organizations simply do not have the resources to comply with some of the reforms outlined. It is obvious that a smaller federally regulated organization cannot maintain membership lists in the same way a major organization like the United Way can.
I would like to express my agreement that regulatory changes are needed for this sector. However, any discussion of changes must consider the lack of stable funding with which these groups are faced. I trust the bill will be thoroughly examined at committee and that we can pass a bill that will be in the best interest of this truly Canadian sector.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions.
Does she not think that there is a great opportunity for the government to implement changes to the tax code that would allow Canada to have the same type of powerful foundations like they have in the United States, which are generators of money, not only for non-profit organizations but also larger initiatives in research and development? In fact, foundations in the U.S. allow substantial sums of money to move forward, for example, the Gates Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and others, that fund not only Canadians who do great work abroad but also other people from various countries.
Does the hon. member believe that here is a missed opportunity for the government to do this, and that it should introduce elements within the bill to allow foundations to have the same type of structure and power that they have in the U.S.?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, earlier when the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca addressed the House, some of his ideas were very interesting to me. I absolutely think this should be discussed at committee. There could be options for this.
I believe many of these non-profit organizations are doing the work that the government should be doing. For example, the steer clean program was mentioned earlier in the House. It is helping to reduce the impacts of climate change, keeping our Kyoto commitments.
While exploring a different tax regime for non-profits might be one thing to look at, we need to also consider how to better fund these organizations that do such great work.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for truly painting a 3-D portrayal of some of the really exciting work that non-profit organizations do in her constituency of Halifax. I look forward to going there and seeing it up close.
My question stems from my experience in working with non-profit organizations in my home area, specifically the Thompson Crisis Centre in Thompson, Manitoba. This is a women's shelter and it has gone above and beyond to provide some of the basic services that women's shelters struggle to offer. The centre is facing some real hardships in terms of possible cutbacks to federal programs, which assist in delivering child care services while women are being counselled. All of us recognize the need for child care in these types of centres if appropriate counsel is to be available for clients.
The difficulty that non-profit organizations such as this one and others encounter is the need to advocate politically to address funding cutbacks and to fight so these cutbacks do not occur. There must be a recognition of the important voice these non-profit organizations must have. They need to point out the gaps and the need for government to step up in terms of its responsibility and support for the important work they do in our communities.
Could I hear the member's thoughts on the political advocacy piece and how this legislation stands to pose some problems in that area?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her interesting story, describing what is happening in Thompson. 
Similarly, in the riding of Halifax, Spryfield lost its one and only licensed non-profit daycare, so there is very little child care in that community.
I have worked with a lot of women who are on welfare. Even though they had a job at one point, they went back on welfare because they could not afford to work and pay child care. At least if they collected welfare, their children were safe for the day. These women are desperate for work, and there is way too many of them. 
Even though these organizations need more federal funding, or sometimes provincial funding, the problem is they are afraid to do advocacy work around these issues. There is a limited amount of advocacy work they can do under the Charities Act, but they are afraid of crossing the line. I have had organizations tell me they do not want to sign a letter to government saying that this is an important issue or that they need more funding for X and Y because then they might lose their charitable status.
It is a bit of a crime if people have to depend on charity to take care of their children and to fund child care. 
There are definitely some problems. There is some pretty profound reluctance by organizations to embark on this kind of advocacy, which is why it is important for us to raise it in the House.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, our communities face real problems around poverty, homelessness and substance abuse, things in which the member has an interest. We all know the plague this has on our communities.
There is a project in Vancouver run by the outstanding researcher Dr. Julio Montaner, who is now the president of the world HIV-Aids continuum and one of the best researchers in the world. The NAOMI project is a narcotics substitution project. It essentially gives people legal narcotics and disengages them from committing crimes, going out on the street, sharing needles and accessing heroin and other narcotics illegally. 
This project has allowed some of the toughest narcotic abusers in Vancouver to get back on their feet and to integrate and become a part of society. It disengages them from organized crime and criminal behaviour and allows them to access medical care. 
Does my friend believe that projects like the NAOMI project, as part of a harm reduction strategy, should be widely available? Should the government terminate its ideological approach to these harm reduction strategies that have proven to work? Should the government halt its legal attempt to block Insite, NAOMI and other harm reduction strategies that have proven to save lives, reduce harm and reduce cost to the taxpayer?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I am aware of projects like the NAOMI project and Insite. I do quite a bit of work with Direction 180 in Halifax, which is a low threshold methadone clinic.
Working with people with opiate addiction is a pretty intense environment in which to work. There are a lot of barriers and struggles faced by those clients, yet I have seen them succeed. I have seen them, as the member put it, move back into society, get jobs and get apartments. Maybe more important, I have seen people not die. 
I go to way too many memorial services for clients of Direction 180 who have not been successful. There was a homeless memorial just last week for people who had died as a result of homelessness or who did not make it through these kinds of harm reduction programs.
I am absolutely in support of harm reduction. These are wonderful projects. They should be funded not just to get people off the streets and back into the workforce, but also to stop them from dying.
Mario Silva: Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member, especially her reference to the arts communities and issues affecting gays and lesbians in her city of Halifax, which I think would be no different than many cities across the country, like the city of Toronto. 
I know the arts community plays a valuable role, especially in the non-profit area, and we want to ensure that this legislation does not burden these wonderful community groups, which are doing great work for us. 
Does she share those views?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. member. 
I do know quite a few arts organizations in our riding that really struggle, not just to make ends meet but to get all the paperwork done so they can continue to see another day and remain a non-profit organization or a charity.
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I was very impressed with the comments by the hon. member for Halifax in many areas. I was particularly taken by her comment that our non-profit groups across Canada are doing the work that government used to do, should be doing and recently has not been doing adequately. It is particularly important that we support our non-profits across Canada in every non-bureaucratic way that we can.
The proposed Bill C-4 has a very narrow scope. It deals only with regulatory reform for non-profit corporations. Despite that, it manages to be incredibly lengthy. Reform is necessary. Better regulations are definitely needed, but not simply more. 
I have two problems with this bill. First, it does not deal with the important reforms that this sector has wanted. Second, I have problems with the way it carries out the changes it does deal with.
Regarding my first point, this bill does not address the major concerns of the non-profit sector. Through years of consultations, including the voluntary sector initiative and its government counterpart, groups in the sector have made it very clear that they want and need the following: clarification and improvements in the charitable status process, help to secure stable and long-term financing and help to address advocacy needs. It is unclear how this bill will help them in these areas.
In the voluntary sector initiative's final report, the need for support for financial accountability and reform for the sector is clear. They ask for assistance in identifying and developing tools for financial management. They ask for accountability and the assistance to gain skills in these areas. This bill fundamentally changes the financial accountability of the sector, but training and skills development do not seem to be a part of the government's plan.
Non-profits have been clear that after years of reduced funding and less-secure funding, they need the means to conduct their businesses through social entrepreneurship in a more streamlined manner. Non-partisan political advocacy is currently ruled by what is commonly called the 10% rule, meaning that no more than 10% of any non-profit's efforts can go towards political advocacy. The sector remains concerned that this is an arbitrary number, difficult to measure and subject to abuse. The right of an organization to bear public witness on an issue that impacts their goals should not be marginalized.
A healthy civil society depends on not-for-profits being allowed to address the issues that are fundamental to their existence in the first place and to educate the general public, the media and the government. Charitable tax status is a long and complicated process. There are complaints that this process can take months or even years longer than it is supposed to. It is a complicated process that leaves too much room for error, delay and perhaps abuse. This bill does nothing to ease that process.
Non-profits have been clear that they want and need tax relief for volunteers. According to Imagine Canada, as the hon. member for Halifax has pointed out, the non-profit and volunteer sector is the second-largest per capita in the world, contributing over 7% to our gross domestic product. This sector has long been supported by some type of government tax incentive program. 
I know that Canada's voluntary sector was not hoping for a complicated legalization of Robert's Rules of Order. I am finding it hard to see how 170 pages of complex new regulations, replacing a few pages in part II of the current Canada Corporations Act, could make life much easier for our non-profits and the volunteers who often run them.
If the government would be willing to spend as much time dealing with issues important to the sector as it has on regulating it, we could have a stronger voluntary sector in Canada. We do not need restrictive and complicated regulations that will all but exclude lay people from starting or running charities and non-profits.
In Thunder Bay--Superior North, we have various groups. The Royal Canadian Legion is in Geraldton, Marathon, Nipigon and throughout the region. We have Environment North, northwestern Ontario's long-standing voice for the environment. We have the Canadian Mental Health Association. We have PACE, People Advocating for Change through Empowerment, in Thunder Bay. We have NOSA, the Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen's Alliance. These are the kinds of groups that need support, not hindrance.
The second group is found in some of the rules and loopholes that this bill sets down. After we had the do-not-call registry debacle, which is achieving the opposite of what was intended in that people on the list are receiving more telemarketer calls, not fewer, Canadians are right to be wary of any more government regulations that will make it easier for people or organizations to access our private information.
Subclause 23(2) of the proposed bill gives debt obligation holders of the non-profit organization or any member within it access to the entire membership list in one convenient package. This is very worrisome. Anyone could sign up as a member, sign a form and access the whole membership list of, for example, the Canadian Red Cross. Who knows where that information would go? Foreign individuals or groups engaged in these activities would be virtually impossible to prosecute. This issue of privacy violation should be scrutinized carefully.
Regulatory reform would be a minor improvement for the non-profit sector, but it is not their main priority. Special attention must be paid to strengthening the privacy of member lists and minimizing the regulatory burden imposed on non-profits by this voluminous legislation.
I hope that our House members will pay due diligence to these concerns in committee.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have a few minutes to speak to the bill, because it has such a bearing, as members have heard, on all the communities we represent.
As members of Parliament, we work every day with the non-profit community and with the voluntary sector. We know how important volunteers are to the provision of services in our communities, and we know just how important it is to have a strong working relationship between the non-profit sector and government and parliamentary representation.
Many colleagues have heard how vital the non-profit sector is in our ridings, and my riding is no different. In fact, without the non-profit sector, very many vital services and commitments would not be fulfilled, because government is just not doing its job in some very key areas.
The contribution made to the economy by thousands and thousands of volunteers in this country has been mentioned over and over again. It has been estimated that the voluntary sector accounts for about 8% of GDP. We could imagine that the House should be gripped with the very notion of supporting the non-profit sector, and perhaps Bill C-4 is one way of doing it.
However, I would question the priority of the government in proceeding with Bill C-4 without looking at the very important relationship between the Government of Canada and the non-profit sector. 
Where is the relationship? What is the relationship? Where is the minister responsible? Where is the money set aside for building that relationship? Whatever happened to the 2001 accord, an accord between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector? It was an accord that set out very clear requirements for government and the voluntary sector to build a relationship, to build a common approach to supporting the voluntary non-profit sector to nourish the values of cooperation, collaboration and transparency. 
Perhaps some parts of Bill C-4 are very much in line with what the voluntary sector has requested, but I do not believe they expected this to be done in the absence of real support for the non-profit sector. I do not believe they thought they would be doing it on their own. 
We are in a time of economic crisis. All our communities are struggling at a time when the non-profit community is in deep trouble because people do not have the resources, the time or the energy to contribute to the non-profit and voluntary sector as they have in the past.
We are at a critical moment. More than ever, we need the Government of Canada to work hand in hand with the voluntary sector, with the volunteers who slug it out, day in and day out, in their communities right across this country. They do not need rhetorical statements about support. They need real, substantive action.
At one time there was the beginning of a relationship between the non-profit sector and the Government of Canada. At one point, not too many years ago, a sum of $150 million was set aside for building that relationship, for ensuring that there was collaboration between all government departments and the non-profit sector, and my Liberal colleagues should remember it because they were part of the government at the time. 
There was in fact the beginning of a system through which each department and each minister would have some capacity for reaching out and nurturing, nourishing and building the non-profit community. Where is that? Have we heard? Where is the money? Where is the commitment? Who is the minister responsible? Is there a minister responsible who believes in this? Is there a minister who actually gets it, in terms of the notions of cooperation and collaboration with the non-profit sector? Is there someone working there to ensure that we build capacity, that we support volunteer groups, that we encourage volunteerism in our society without leaving them high and dry?
I think the opposite is happening. At the very time that our charitable sector is under pressure because people just do not have the same kind of money to make donations, the government is cutting back in all areas of the volunteer and non-profit sector, areas where they have made a huge difference in terms of helping people through the worst of times and the best of times.
All I need to do is look at the budget and know the impact of the government's direction on the non-profit voluntary sector. In the Department of Health alone, we are looking at departmental cutbacks of $42.7 million in this fiscal year, $52.9 million in the next year and $72.2 million after that. Where do we think that will come from? What will that mean in terms of support for the non-profit sector? What will that mean for services no longer provided by either the government or the non-profit sector?
We have been through this before many times. We have seen the government attempt to slash, hack and burn the literacy program. With much pressure and support from community groups, the Conservatives put back some of that, but we have seen the pattern and we know what is likely to come unless we are vigilant.
We have seen it with the HIV-AIDS community and all of the prevention program cuts. We know that valued women's health programs are possibly on the chopping block and many other programs that work with communities in terms of providing vital services, linking up with government to ensure that government programs are delivered in the most effective way and in fact building capacity so that people become less and less reliant upon government in some instances.
I fear that this approach is tantamount to telling the non-profit sector that it is on its own, without the support of government. There is no real relationship between the government and the voluntary sector.
Perhaps a member of the government could tell us where the 2001 accord is, which was the result of months and months of consultation between the government and the voluntary sector. We ended up with an accord that enunciated the vision of the voluntary sector and made a commitment between the two parties, the government and the non-profit sector, to work together to develop the framework for an ongoing partnership, a permanent relationship, and to put in place proper processes.
We are left with these questions. Where is the accord? Where is the money that helps build the relationship? Where is the minister responsible? Where is there a focus in every department for doing just this? How can we believe that Bill C-4 will enhance and support the non-profit sector if we do not have any kind of indication from the government that it is prepared to put some money where its mouth is, especially at a time when it appears to be reaching deep into departmental spending lines and cutting where it hurts the most in terms of our voluntary, non-profit sector?
We have seen time and time again examples of that. Every day that we deal with constituents, we know that groups are hamstrung by the fact that they are either being cut back or are trying to get charitable status but cannot because the government has some notion that the very notion of advocacy is political, that it is bad and that if we advocate for and work with our constituents to help them help themselves to build capacity, that is bad, wrong and no good.
In fact, that is one of the issues in the bill that needs to be addressed. How is it that even with the 10% rule in terms of advocacy, the government still continues to question groups that meet that 10% bar but are still accused of not doing strictly charitable work because it borders too much on helping people to speak up, advocating for others and working with communities so they cooperate on big projects in order to overcome some very deep-rooted systemic issues, whether we are talking about economic or social issues, or we are talking about the ability of a community to practise its traditions according to its heritage and with all the cultural celebration that is part of it.
I have yet to hear in this debate any commitment from the government to the non-profit sector. Before we go any further with the bill, I would like to see the government come forward with a plan that tells us exactly what happened to the 2001 accord. Is it just gathering dust somewhere? Is there some plan to bring it forward, to rekindle the relationship between government and the non-profit sector, to restore some sense of confidence that in fact the government believes in people who have spent hours donating their time and their money but are faced with a government and a political climate where there is just not that faith or belief in the non-profit voluntary sector?
What is key is the sense from government that what volunteers do matters, that it matters when people use their free time, money and other resources to contribute to the life of a community, whether it is economic, social, cultural, educational or spiritual. We can address every one of those topics in the context of Bill C-4 and yet we have not heard one word from the government on how it intends to instill the feeling in our communities that what they do matters, that they are part of the economy; 8% of the GDP. Can members imagine?
At a time of economic crisis, when we want to stimulate and kick-start the economy, is it not important for community groups to have the necessary resources to provide the voluntary services that they are so good at, that saves government money in the long run, that has enormous spinoffs in terms of the creation of jobs and economic activity, in terms of purchase power and in terms of the feeling of confidence and self-worth where one can go out into the community and play a solid role and give back one's talents?
I think it is awfully strange that, in this time of economic crisis, we do not have a government with a vision on this front. We need that vision. We do not just need a bill that says that we will put in place some rules to ensure there is tough transparency and regulation and to ensure everything is above board and there are no problems. 
Ironically, we are talking about getting tough with the non-profit voluntary sector while the government sits back and does nothing about the excesses of the for-profit sector. Why is there no initiative on the part of the government like President Obama is doing in the United States to crack down on corporations and corporate CEOs' salaries and perks? Why are we not doing something that actually makes a difference in terms of sending a message to Canadians? Why are the profits of bank managers and CEOs so high at a time when they are refusing to pass on the savings to consumers that the government gives them through reduced interest rates? Why are we not starting to look at what is really fair in society today? What is fair is, in fact, to support the non-profit sector while cracking down on the excesses of the for-profit community.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)