Debates of Feb. 6th, 2009

CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

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?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

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, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

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, NDP, 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.)