Bill C-4 (Historical)

Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act

An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations

This enactment establishes a framework for the governance of not-for-profit corporations and other corporations without share capital, mainly based on the Canada Business Corporations Act.
The enactment replaces the “letters patent” system of incorporation by an “as of right” system of incorporation. The current requirement for ministerial review of letters patent and by-laws prior to incorporation is replaced by the granting of incorporation upon the sending of required information and payment of a fee.
The enactment provides for modern corporate governance standards, including the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of directors and officers, along with related defences, and financial accountability and disclosure requirements.
The enactment sets out the capacity and powers of a corporation as a natural person, including its right to buy and sell property, make investments, borrow funds and issue debt obligations.
The enactment sets out the rights of members, including the right to vote at a meeting of members, call a special meeting of members, advance proposals for consideration at meetings of members and access corporate records.
The enactment provides requirements for financial review by a public accountant and financial disclosure based on whether a corporation has solicited funds and its level of annual revenue.
The enactment gives the Director powers of administration, including the power to make inquiries related to compliance and to access key corporate documents such as financial statements and membership lists.
The enactment includes remedies for members and other interested persons to address the conduct of a corporation that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly disregards the interests of any creditor, director, officer or member.
The enactment provides procedures for the amalgamation, continuance, liquidation and dissolution of a corporation and other fundamental corporate changes. The continuance provisions govern the continuance of bodies incorporated under other Acts and provide a power for the Governor in Council to require a federal body corporate without share capital to apply for continuance under the enactment or be dissolved.
The enactment modernizes the legal regime that applies to corporations without share capital created by special Acts of Parliament by providing that those corporations are natural persons, requiring the holding of an annual meeting and the sending of an annual return, and regulating a change of a corporation’s name and its dissolution.
The enactment gives corporations with share capital created by special Acts of Parliament and subject to Part IV of the Canada Corporations Act six months to apply for continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act or be dissolved.
The enactment makes a number of consequential amendments to other federal Acts. It provides for a phased repeal of the Canada Corporations Act as corporations cease being subject to the Parts of that Act.

Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

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?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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.

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.

CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. Before question period, the hon. member for Vancouver East had 12 minutes left.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

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.