House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was corporations.
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.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
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.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
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.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
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.
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
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.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
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.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
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.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
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.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
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.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
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.
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
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.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
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.
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 Liberal 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.
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
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.
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
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.
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
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.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
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.