Debates of Feb. 6th, 2009

Questions on the Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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, NDP, 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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member who talked about a number of different things. He elaborated on the slowness that legislation moves through the House.

We are talking today about the Canada not-for-profit corporations bill. He spoke very little about that, but I want to ask him a question on it. Does he support the phasing out of the old legislation, the Canada Corporations Act, and providing a phase-in to the new act? It would help the not-for-profit sector. It is a good move. It updates the legislation. Will he help in moving the legislation along quickly or is he going to talk about a lot of other things and cause a slow glacial movement of legislation in the House?

The other question regards first nations. The member was involved with the former Liberal government for 13 long dark years and things did move very slowly. In my riding I have an excellent relationship with the Kwantlen First Nation, which for decades asked for help to stop the erosion of McMillan Island falling into the Fraser River. The former Liberal government was asked numerous times for help but it did not help. Again it was a very slow glacial movement. However, within months of our becoming the government in 2006, that problem was solved.

On the residential schools apology, again, the first nations were waiting for an apology. That apology happened under our government. I think the member is noticing a dramatic change in speeding up good legislation. With regard to matrimonial rights for first nations women, I think the member voted against that.

Maybe he could share why he is involved with a legacy of slowdown. Will he now support a government that is getting it done?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to correct the hon. member. I was in the Liberal government for a year and a half, which was after I had been on his side for 10 years, but he might not have been around at that time.

On the issue of Bill C-4, we compliment the government on bringing forward changes to the Canada Corporations Act. That act went back to 1917. However, we want to make sure that the legislation contains changes that will liberate the NGOs and enable them to do the wonderful work that they do, and that it is not a Gordian knot that introduces numerous other administrative hurdles and obstacles that costs them a lot of money. We will move this legislation forward but we want to make sure that it contains the effective solutions to liberate the not-for-profit sector, not administrative requirements that would hamper their ability to do their job, which would cause them to move at a glacial pace.

On the issue of first nations, it has been extremely frustrating for first nations communities to see many of the actions of the government. The Conservatives have done some good things and I give them credit for that, but the government has not done anything on some of the fundamental issues of investing in things that enable first nations communities to take care of themselves.

There was an example in the long list of solutions I was trying to give to the government in my speech. The 2% cap on first nations funding must be lifted. With inflation and with the population growth rate which is much higher than 2%, it is actually eroding the funding capabilities of first nations to help themselves.

I would ask my hon. colleague and his government to implement those solutions and the others in my speech.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, there was some great information in the member's speech about the strength of the voluntary sector and the not-for-profit sector in Canada.

I want to share a story from my riding. The Nova Scotia--Gambia Association is a non-profit development organization based in Canada, but it works with West African partners to pursue initiatives for equitable and sustainable futures for youth. Every year in Halifax the NSGA holds an African night. There is African food, culture, music and wonderful speakers. It is an excellent event. I have attended it. It holds this event because the money it receives from CIDA is not enough to fund the great work it is doing in West Africa.

Does the member agree that while we do need to consider ways to strengthen the regulations regarding not-for-profit organizations, we should simultaneously be having discussions about secure funding so that this work can continue?

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

Madam Speaker, there are many NGOs in this country that do great work. I encourage everyone who is listening to visit the website canadaaid.ca. It lists Canadian NGOs working here at home and abroad, such as the one my hon. friend mentioned. They are doing superb jobs.

The first thing that the government could do and what is perhaps more important is to enable the NGOs to generate more money themselves. They could do that with the tax changes I mentioned. It would actually take pressure off the government to fund more by enabling citizens to donate more. As I said before, 53% of Canadians would like to donate more if there was a more attractive tax credit. That is critically important.

To address the member's other question, the government should work with the NGOs to ensure there is a transparent and functional accounting system that does not drown the NGOs in red tape.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for indicating that he and his party are going to support the bill. We appreciate it because we think it has a lot of value.

I know that my colleague pays attention to detail most every time he speaks and I appreciate that. I wonder about the suggestions the member had about the EI benefits and other changes that he sees could have been added to the budget. I am sure he would like to separate himself from his colleagues in the NDP who never seem to come to the House with a price on the things that they want. Perhaps the member might be able to present some pricing for the ideas that he has suggested today. He could get his point across a little better that way but also separate himself from the NDP members who never seem to attach a cost to their wish list. The hon. member knows that there is not an endless supply of money and it is good to know what it is going to cost up front when an idea comes forward.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question from my friend. I know that in his area of Prince George many of his constituents have lost their jobs in the forestry sector. I worked up there for many years in the hospital. It is a tragedy for those towns to go through those ups and downs because they are dependent in part on the resource sector.

We know that for every $1 that is donated the multiplier effect is $7 to $10. If the government were to provide a more lucrative tax credit to the individual donor, we would see a vast increase in monies that are available because the multiplier effect is great. It would actually save some of the taxpayers' money that the government uses in some of its programs. The principle behind it is one which I know my hon. friend very much adheres to as we do. That principle is to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves. We should maximize the capabilities that we have in our citizenry. We should ensure that people have the tools to do the great things they can do and make sure that government is not getting in the way.

That is why we would like to see this bill have an administrative structure that listens to the NGO community and adopts a framework that is easy to implement, that is open, transparent and has true accountability. My friend from Victoria, Henry McCandless, a former assistant deputy minister in the Office of the Auditor General said that true accountability is the obligation on the part of senior government officials and elected officials to tell the public what they are doing, why they are doing it and how much it is going to cost and then tell them what they have done with that in the future.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations.

I am surprised. Earlier, I was listening to the Liberal member answer a question from the Conservative member. Each was accusing the other. The Liberal member said that the Conservatives move at a slow, glacial pace. The Conservatives said that, in their day, the Liberals moved even more slowly, more glacially. Now that they are in bed together, I can only speculate as to whether things are still slow and glacial, but it always makes me smile.

People have been asking for new not-for-profit corporation legislation since 1999. I will go into detail later on. We will support the bill. Nevertheless, we want our House of Commons colleagues to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. Under section 92 of the Constitution, the provinces are responsible for management of the social economy, volunteering and community activities. All matters of a “merely local or private nature” fall under the exclusive purview of Quebec and the provinces.

As proud defenders of the Quebec nation, we must ensure that this bill does not encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Not-for-profit organizations operating exclusively in Quebec are already governed by Part III of Quebec's Companies Act. We just want to make sure that this bill will not prevent not-for-profit organizations from operating.

It is important to note that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction only over organizations that do not have provincial objects. Subsection 11 of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically gives the provinces jurisdiction over “the incorporation of companies with provincial objects”. Currently, section 154 of the Canada Corporations Act states that the federal minister may grant an organization the right to incorporate if it is carrying on “objects, to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like objects”.

This is important, because not-for-profit organizations are currently governed by the Canada Corporations Act, which is why we are amending that act. This section pertains to organizations that come under the legislative authority of Parliament. It appears that clause 4 of the new bill would not require a not-for-profit organization to state its purpose in its articles of incorporation. Clearly, it could be confusing if the organization's purpose is not stated. Inevitably, the result could be interference in the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions.

It will therefore come as no surprise that, even though we support this bill, we would like to see it go to committee so that our colleagues understand the situation and we make sure that the bill as introduced does not conflict with section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. We believe that the bill should be amended to limit its scope to not-for-profit organizations that operate or have offices in more than one province or whose purpose comes under federal jurisdiction, in order to respect the spirit of part II of the current Canada Corporations Act, which pertains to not-for-profit organizations.

That is our goal, as worthy representatives of the Quebec nation, in order to protect the interests of Quebeckers and especially not-for-profit organizations operating in Quebec.

Earlier, someone mentioned the slow movement of legislation. If we look back at the history of this bill, we can see how we have come to this point in 2009. The Canada Business Corporations Act creates the frame of reference, as I said earlier. In recent years, stakeholders have expressed concern that this act is out of date and no longer meets the needs of today's not-for-profit sector.

The stakeholders publicly asked for reforms to the legislation and in 1999, the task force on the voluntary sector, created by the federal government, asked that improvements be made to the regulatory framework governing the sector. Industry Canada's proposal aimed at updating the Canada Business Corporations Act is part of the task force's plan.

As far back as July 2000, Industry Canada produced a document entitled Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law. After that document was published, the department organized a series of round table discussions in various cities across the country in order to examine the ideas presented in the document. Following the round tables, the government thought it would be a good idea to make concrete proposals. Thus, we can see that some questioning began in 1999 and discussions began in 2000. On November 15, 2004, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-21. Of course, since the Liberal government's reign was so short lived, the legislation was never passed.

On June 13, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament, the Conservatives took essentially the same bill and reinstated it as Bill C-62. In the end, the bill did not pass because the Conservatives, who had promised fixed election dates, decided to force an election. Unfortunately for all those waiting for this act to be modernized, the bill lapsed. On December 3, a similar bill was introduced at first reading by the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), a Conservative minister. Then the government decided to prorogue the House and the bill died. Finally, on January 28, Bill C-4 was introduced and will be studied against that backdrop.

I can understand that the Liberals and Conservatives accuse one another of moving at a slow, glacial pace. However, for all those waiting for changes to this law, I hope we will act as quickly as possible and move forward. The Bloc's only request is that the Constitution be respected so that not-for-profit organizations falling under Quebec jurisdiction can truly be viable and not be jeopardized by this bill.

That is what we will do and we will be pleased to participate in all the debates.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments with regard to Bill C-4.

Prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I, as a chartered accountant, had the opportunity to have a number of not-for-profit organizations as clients. As well, in my work in one of the corporate employs that I had in my early career, I was actually involved in the work which introduced the Canada Business Corporations Act and moved it from the Canada Corporations Act and all the continuance provisions.

I am sure all members will look at the bill and wonder how they will put their minds around the document. I took the opportunity to look at the details. I suspect that if I were to cross out everything that was boilerplate, mirroring the rules, the provisions and the features of the bill that are required under the Canada Business Corporations Act for for-profit corporations, the bill would be about quarter of the size that it is.

The bill also contains a number of interesting provisions, and one in which I will take specific interest and hope to be involved in at committee stage is with regard to regulations. I will comment on that in a brief moment.

For the record, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the bill, as I would most bills in the nature of building on an existing foundation of corporate governance, whether it be share capital or non-share capital, profit or not-for-profit.

This is a very important bill that we move forward to committee. I very much doubt that the members themselves at this point will be able to speak in very much detail to the risks, the rewards, the benefits or the pitfalls that may exist in the bill without hearing from the experts and the stakeholders in all sectors across the governance model.

However, it is at second reading where all hon. members get an opportunity to raise specific issues or maybe to recommend to the committee that these are areas of interest or of concern. I hope the committee will bring forward the appropriate witnesses so that the questions or the issues can be elaborated on, not only by the government and by departmental officials, but also have the higher level interventions of experts and representatives across the governance spectre to ensure t there are no hidden or unintended consequences.

That is always the problem when we get bills which are substantively omnibus bills to the extend that they do have consequential amendments to a large number of other existing legislation in Canada.

If we were to take all of the bills that this particular bill touches, we would probably have a very large pile of reading to do, because some of the changes that occur in here cannot be understood in terms of the amendment being proposed in the bill to another bill. That amendment needs to be read in the context of the bill which it is amending. We need to know, if this is plugged in to some other piece legislation, whether it make sense.

These are the kinds of things we rely on: the departmental officials to give us the assurance. We have the responsibility for the legislation but we second that responsibility to a great extent in bills like this to the departmental officials and to the experts. We also seek the input of other witnesses, which helps us to discharge that responsibility for the legislation without being the experts ourselves.

We cannot be experts in all things but we can ask reasonable, fair questions so it can be explained to us. In some cases I like to ask the experts in committee to explain it to me so that my grandmother would understand. I want the explanation in plain and simple language because, if our legislation is not in plain and simple language, when people involved in a broad range of not-for-profit organizations see this, their first reaction will be to wonder whether they will be swamped with more paperwork from government requirements. They will want to know whether it will be cost-effective, whether they will need to hire lawyers to help guide them through the pitfalls in which they may find themselves, whether their organization will be put at risk if they have to come under the rules, whether it will affect the way they do business, and whether they will be subject to other exposures to risk from other stakeholders without knowing who they are.

All hon. members have a wealth of opportunity to maybe find a little nugget within legislation such as this to consult with not-for-profit organizations in their own community, to ask whether they are even aware of this or if they have an advocacy group on behalf of all the groups across the country in the same or similar businesses that will be there, and to encourage them to come out to the committee or to have representation at the committee, and to let them know that it will not be at no cost to them. For us to do a good job and for us to have them there, we pay the cost to bring them here to ensure they have an opportunity to express the views, concerns or even the questions of these various groups and organizations.

My intervention is maybe an invitation to all hon. members to not be reluctant to open this document and to determine whether there is a nugget in which they can champion or encourage groups and organizations with which they are familiar or with which they have had some undertakings.

One of the areas I will be looking is the responsibilities of directors and officers. This is an important aspect of governance life in Canada. The corporate sector at large has had a lot of difficulty with conflicts of interest, fraud, embezzlement and the benefits to people as a consequence of their role in an organization.

Bill C-4 also addresses the whole area of directors and officers. I think all hon. members would agree that the accountability, the transparency and the openness are important aspects. Part 9 of the bill outlines the duty for directors and officers to manage and supervise management . It addresses the number of directors needed. Sometimes there are closed shops and sometimes there are too many and the work does not get done. The qualifications are extremely important, and members may want to look at that.

For directors in the not-for-profits, there are guidelines and things for notice to directors ceasing to hold office, removal of directors, statements of directors, how to fill a vacancy, changing the number, et cetera. The list is very long. The bill addresses those kinds of issues. It would give organizations the opportunity to realize the extent to which they have a responsibility. Each organization under this governance model would provide, if they follow and comply with the legislation, a comfort level to all Canadians from the standpoint of being able to understand that the organization has rules to follow, that they can trust the organization to follow the rules and that there is a compliance mechanism in place to ensure that happens.

The other aspect is bylaws and members. In my role as a member and currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, it does cover the bylaws and members. It basically deals with information about who the members are, what their involvement is and a variety of other things. This is a very important aspect. I am very interested in this from the standpoint of potential privacy issues, potential cyber crime, identity theft, et cetera.

Finally, I simply want to make a comment with regard to the regulations. There is a section in the bill on regulations which has to do with the coming into force of the legislation. It comes after the very last part of the bill.

Members probably know that a bill will either say it comes into force upon receiving royal assent or it will say that it comes into force on the date designated by order in council. Usually when a bill requires regulations it will state on a date specified by order in council.

After we have dealt with a bill in the House of Commons at second reading, it goes to committee where committee members hear from experts and witnesses and departmental officials. The bill may be amended there. After the bill is voted on in committee, it comes back to the House for report stage where more amendments may be proposed by members who were not involved in the process at the committee stage. A vote is then held at that stage. A debate is held at third reading and another vote takes place. The bill will go to the Senate where it will go through virtually the same process.

One thing that is not done in the entire process of reviewing a piece of legislation like this bill is that we do not see the regulations. We do not see the regulations when we have to vote to make the bill law. The regulations are the details necessary to supplement or amplify the intent of the bill. Every regulation must be enabled, authorized, in the bill itself.

Members will find that in this legislation there are a substantial number of regulations required which may take six months or a year to be implemented. I know of a bill where three years after its passage, the regulations still have not been fully implemented. The bill as we passed it in this place is not fully functional.

In the past I was chair of the joint Senate and Commons committee on the scrutiny of regulations, but I continue to be a member of that committee in this current Parliament.

I want to follow this particular bill. Even though the bill provides a whole section on definitions to guide the understanding of the bill, one of the requirements is that the governor in council define terms used in the bill which have not been defined in the bill. If something is in the bill and it might require a definition, I do not understand why the definition would not be put in the bill and then the regulation would not be needed.

I want to particularly follow that one because it is the first time I have ever seen it. I want to understand why it is that someone thinks something has to be defined in the regulations so that the bill is clear. When we already anticipate today that it may be a problem, why not just put it in the bill? I look through some of these things as a member of Parliament.

As I indicated, I will be supporting the bill. However, I need more answers as a legislator before I can enthusiastically endorse every aspect of it. Quite frankly, it is going to take some time before I become fully conversant in all of the nuances of the bill because there are many other pieces of legislation that I would have to ask the Library of Parliament to get for me so that I could look at this in context.

This is a situation which I would characterize as a mission impossible for members of Parliament by themselves and even by their caucuses. They need the experts and the officials. We need to make sure that they know that we are interested in having these matters explained to us, the raison d'être as it were, so that we can do a good job as parliamentarians.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his fine remarks. He outlined quite well some of the issues of concern with Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations.

All of us have not-for-profit organizations within our own ridings. In my riding of Davenport there are excellent organizations such as the Working Women Community Centre, the Abrigo Centre and the Working Skills Centre. These not-for-profit agencies deal mainly with immigrants and refugees, and help the vulnerable and those in need in our city. I congratulate them on all their fine work. I am sure the hon. member has many organizations in his own riding that he can also comment upon and thank.

Not-for-profit organizations are essential in our communities. They are the ones that deliver the real services. They are doing a tremendous amount of work for very low pay. They have difficulty raising money and it is not always easy to get funding from different levels of government, but they are doing incredible work. Certainly cities like Toronto would not be liveable and we would not have a country like we do have at the moment if it were not for these agencies.We have to do everything possible to help them out.

I share the comments of my colleague about whether this legislation is going to add to the burden of the not-for-profit agencies, whether it is going to add more red tape in terms of not streamlining the processes.

Maybe my hon. colleague could comment further on his concerns, which I share and are valid, about not burdening the not-for-profit organizations because they are doing tremendous work for Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it certainly does make me reflect on some of my experiences with the not-for-profit sector, particularly in the immigration services area, those that provide settlement services, ESL training, and a number of other services for new Canadians.

The money for these organizations generally comes from federal and provincial funding programs. They are quite rigidly set on the number of people being served, et cetera, and are very modest. Many of these organizations have very little opportunity to raise money elsewhere, and even if they do, the funding that they may get from the federal or provincial governments may be reduced because they have other sources of revenue. It is almost as though they cannot help themselves. They are stuck.

The most poignant example that I can recall is that Multicultural Services of Peel, when it existed, was approached by a union to organize. The union negotiators demanded that salary levels be increased substantially. That was the contract being sought. The organization had to hire a lawyer. One thing led to another and the organization folded up its tent and went away, because it had no control over what it could pay its people. The salary or compensation per employee in certain areas is designated in the funding package from the federal or provincial governments.

These organizations operate on a very narrow budget. There is no fat. It is very lean. A lot of people have asked me why one would want to start a not-for-profit organization. The fact is that it is efficient, it provides services, and it is not meant for growth.

I am concerned about the burden on the organizations. I think we all should keep that in mind.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has done some phenomenal work in the financial sector and here in the House. I know he cares deeply for and has a great interest in non-profit organizations. What does he think ought to be done in terms of streamlining the system to enable non-profits to do their great work? Does he agree that we must ensure that this bill does not add an unbelievable amount of red tape which would crush the ability of NGOs to work, would draw resources away from the sharp edge of the care that they give to other people and would divert their attention to dealing with paperwork?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly there are examples in our legislative framework and some of the programs, and even the taxation models that we have, that take into account that one size does not fit all. I think that applies to the not-for-profit sector. There are some organizations that are very large, some that are very powerful, in terms of their influence not only on their own community but on the country as a whole. There are other organizations, however, that are very small and, as I indicated, they do not have the resources to do things. When I think of something like the GST, there are different methods to file a GST return which take into account the size or the volume of the business.

With regard to Bill C-4, I do not know whether there can be provisos. I think we should ask about it. There could be some exemptions. They may have to fall under the act. However, with regard to the reporting requirements, maybe there could be a quick method or maybe the smaller not-for-profit organizations could have some way of mitigating the increased costs that organizations inevitably would face.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree that we are quite fortunate to have in our caucus people who have been involved with many organizations throughout their lifetime.

He spoke to the importance of immigrant settlement, which I think is quite fundamental as well. Our esteemed colleague from Beaches--East York is one of the founders of COSTI, which does an incredible amount of good work across the GTA in dealing with immigrant settlement. This exemplary work is something we should be congratulating as well. We need to ensure that when legislation such as this comes into law it does not burden those organizations but that it helps them. We need to be supportive of them just as they have been supportive of so many communities and so many people in need.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though there is a theme going on here, and I tend to agree. However, as an accountant, let me say that there are two ways to improve the bottom line: one is to increase income levels, revenues; the other is to reduce expenses. They both come out to a desired result.

With regard to the not-for-profits, many of their problems pre-exist this bill. This bill would make their situation a little worse.

I can say that in my experience the employees of not-for-profit organizations generally involved in the social services sector are the lowest paid and they do the most important work. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that with the amount of money allocated by the Government of Canada and the provinces, people who are helping people be better people and help families in need cannot be paid a fair a reasonable salary. It means that the turnover rate in this sector is also very high. That is not good for Canada either.

We have to advocate not only for some assistance in this bill for those who would be under duress because of additional paperwork and administrative work, which has nothing to do with delivering services, but also to look at the funding levels provided in existing federal programs for these important groups and organizations so that they can sustain a solid staff which has good experience and continuity. That experience and expertise makes a great deal of difference in affecting the lives of Canadians in need.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Mississauga South for shedding some light on some of the issues to which we should be alert, regarding the reform of legislation governing not-for-profits.

I am happy to also join the debate today on Bill C-4, an act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations. As others have pointed out, this bill is very similar to a bill introduced in 2004 that sought to streamline and reform the regulatory framework of federally incorporated not-for-profits. It seems to me that many of the concerns at that time remain and for that reason I think this bill needs some careful examination.

With job losses growing on a daily basis and our social support networks struggling, the work of non-profit organizations is needed now more than ever. Non-profits in my riding of Halifax provide front line services, advocate for those in need, research new ideas, and protect and promote local culture. It is worth noting that smaller provinces like Nova Scotia actually have higher numbers of non-profits relative to their populations.

I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the work that these organizations are doing to make this point really clear. Canada's non-profit and voluntary sector is the second largest in the world after the Netherlands. There are an estimated 161,000 non-profits and charities in Canada, and half of these are run entirely by volunteers. About 19,000 of those not-for-profits are incorporated under federal law. Two million people in Canada are employed by not-for-profits, making this sector one of the largest employers in Canada. The non-profit sector represents 7.8% of our GDP, which is larger than the auto and manufacturing sectors.

Legislative measures that seek to make it easier for these organizations to work are welcome. However, when looking at the proposals in Bill C-4, we have to ensure that any reforms help rather than hinder this vital sector. I have worked with a lot of non-profits in the past and when they have encountered problems with their governance structures, it hurts these organizations and can hurt them for years to come, but it can also devastate the local communities relying on those organizations.

Canadians can be proud about our place internationally. We have literally thousands of volunteers and workers running services in this country that we have all come to know well. The minister herself put it best when she was introducing this bill earlier in the week. She said:

There is widespread recognition of the importance of strengthening Canada's not-for-profit sector, including the social purpose enterprises that form its backbone. These organizations are an important pillar of the economy as a whole. There are approximately 160,000 not-for-profit organizations operating in Canada. When universities, colleges and hospitals are included, the 2003 revenues of the sector were over $136 billion, up from $86 billion in 1997, a decade ago.

I applaud the minister for pointing this out.

However, when we take this bill to committee, we need to ensure that we consider this legislation with an eye to the diversity of non-profits across Canada. I applaud any attempt to respond to this sector's request to reform legislation, but let us ensure that we consider the impacts that any changes will have on any federally incorporated non-profit.

While we all share an appreciation of the work of these organizations, we would do well to remember that non-profit organizations are constantly faced with funding shortages. I hope that while we debate this bill, and this sector gains some attention in the House, that we keep funding top of mind. The bill, as presented, seeks to apply blunt regulatory reforms on all federally regulated non-profits. What is not present in the bill is accommodation for the diversity in both size and scope of the organizations in question.

While from a law-making standpoint a one-size-fits-all approach might seem a lot easier, it is not always in the best interests of the sectors affected. In consultations, representatives from the sector have outlined a number of regulatory concerns. This bill only deals with a narrow band of those issues. At the top of that list was securing long-term, stable financing, something that is not dealt with by Bill C-4.

Many parliamentarians have been members of boards and non-profits, whether federally or provincially incorporated. Therefore, I am sure the need for stability is clear to them.

When non-profits can see that they will be funded consistently over a set number of years, their program can be more comprehensive and their financial planning can be less ad hoc and more accountable. This accountability is exactly what members of government have been pointing out as the major intention of Bill C-4. I am hopeful that this aspect will be considered appropriately.

It is worth pointing out that, whether it is an arts organization or a front line anti-poverty service provider, when funding is unpredictable or regulations are too complicated, they can put the work done in jeopardy. That in turn has a serious impact on the communities that are clients of the organization. In places like Halifax we cannot afford to have the work of these organizations hindered.

I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to some of these non-profit organizations that are doing great work in my riding and highlight the need for continued sustainable funding. The Ecology Action Centre has acted as a voice for Nova Scotia's environment for 35 years. In 1971 the EAC began working to build a healthier, more sustainable Nova Scotia. Today it has over a thousand members, 250 volunteers and staff, and 7 active teams and committees. Some of the amazing successes it has had included the launching of the first recycling program in Nova Scotia. Now Nova Scotia has a waste diversion rate higher than any industrialized nation.

The EAC has also successfully advocated for the protection of 25,000 acres of wilderness since 2004. It initiated and now delivers the HRM by-law restrictions on the cosmetic use of pesticides, reducing restrictive pesticide permits by 80% since 2004.

It has also created Nova Scotia's first working demonstration of a green office renovation and it recycled more than 125 pre-1995 cars through the steer clean program, thus helping to reduce air pollution by removing high polluting vehicles from the roads in Nova Scotia.

From the environment we move on to the issue of poverty. We have many amazing not-for-profit poverty organizations in the riding like Adsum for Women & Children, a non-profit community based organization that has been active since 1983 in the entire Halifax region. Currently, there are three facilities run by Adsum. It operates Adsum House, which is an emergency shelter for women and children, and it has serviced about 12,000 women and their children since 1983.

It also has Adsum Court which is a 24-unit apartment complex located in Dartmouth which is actually across the harbour from the Halifax riding. Adsum Court is a way to respond to the lack of safe and affordable housing in the community.

Finally, there is also Adsum Centre which is stage two supportive housing for women who are looking to achieve their personal independent living goals. I have done quite a bit of work with Adsum, with both the staff and the women at Adsum House and Adsum Centre. I have seen firsthand their amazing work which represents their values, that dignity, worth and potential of everyone is important.

We also have quite a few organizations working on the issue of housing, like the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association. Metro Non-Profit Housing Association assists single adults who have been homeless or are at risk of homelessness. It helps these adults create and maintain their homes. It does not just consider these homes a place to live. It wants it to be a place to call home so it strives to create housing units that are safe, secure and comfortable, a place where its tenants can feel at ease and feel at home. It actually supports the Shining Lights Choir, which is an amazing choir in Halifax made up of people who are homeless or who have experienced homelessness. It sings at quite a few different events and it is just an outstanding choir in the community.

Metro Non-Profit Housing Association actually talks about how some of its tenants have moved on to become entrepreneurs and some have even graduated from university. Another form of achievement, on move-in, about 65% of its tenants relied on social assistance but now only 25% because so many of its tenants have actually moved into the workforce once they achieved affordable, stable housing.

We are also very strong in arts in Halifax. I will raise the non-profit Halifax Dance as an example. It is firmly dedicated to the development of dance and movement through arts, education, performance and community development in an environment that values the diversity and potential of all individuals. Halifax Dance is amazing. It logs its volunteer hours. It actually calculated that last year its volunteers logged in over 2,000 volunteer hours. This year is its 35th anniversary and it is very excited because on February 21 it is having a black tie event with a very special guest, Karen Kain.

If you have ever been to Halifax, Madam Speaker, and you have driven past our Citadel, you may have been stopped by a line of horses crossing the street right in downtown Halifax, and if you looked to your right you would have actually seen a set of stables. This the Halifax Junior Bengal Lancers and it was founded as a non-profit in 1936. It brought life and character to central Halifax through its stables and horseback riding arenas on Bell Road.

This area has been designated a heritage site recently. While the facilities are home to 30 horses and about 100 children and adults who take part in the horseback riding programs, they are also an integral part to Halifax's prime tourist area which includes the public gardens and Citadel Hill. We are proud of the fact that we actually have horses coming along the streets in downtown Halifax. It is really something.

Every fall in Halifax we also anxiously await the printing of one particular catalogue. This is a catalogue of movies featured in the upcoming Atlantic Film Festival. The festival is organized by the Atlantic Film Festival Association which is a not-for-profit organization. Members are committed to promoting and building a strong film industry in Atlantic Canada and presenting the best films from the region and from around the world to our local community.

Under the umbrella of the non-profit association there are four main entities: the Atlantic Film Festival itself; Strategic Partners co-production conference; Viewfinders, which is an international film festival for youth and it is outstanding, if I do say so myself; and alFresco Film Festival, which is an outdoor film festival where movies are projected onto a large building at the waterfront. It is an extraordinary experience to sit by Halifax Harbour and watch movies outside under the light of the moon.

Some of the work that I have done in Nova Scotia with our non-profits has included work with NSRAP, the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project. This non-profit society was formed in 2000, and it strives to provide a coherent voice for gay, lesbian, bisexual, two-spirited, transsexual and transgender people, a group that it refers to as the rainbow community, throughout Nova Scotia. It is pan-Nova Scotian, but its main office is located in Halifax.

NSRAP, and its early iterations, has been working since 1995 throughout Nova Scotia as a voice for the rainbow community and its work is varied. It does political lobbying and legal work, and it does community building and research. It also tries to play a role as the public voice for the rainbow community in the media. I have had the opportunity to do quite a bit of work with its transgender committee, fighting for the rights of transgendered individuals in Nova Scotia and across Canada.

We are also the proud home of a strong and proud Black Nova Scotian community in Halifax and many communities around Nova Scotia. Many non-profits have formed over time to support and promote African-Nova Scotian issues, history and culture. One such organization is the Black Educators Association which was founded in 1969 to assist African-Nova Scotian communities develop strategies toward an equitable education system.

Demonstrating a strong commitment as a grassroots organization, the BEA also coordinates its efforts with government departments, community groups, parent associations, school boards and other educational bodies. It has been involved in establishing many different projects and programs which include a bursary fund, regional educators program, advocates for black teachers, adult education and cultural academic enrichment programs.

Some of our non-profit work in Halifax also focuses on theatre and great literary works like the non-profit organization Shakespeare by the Sea. It is actually like a dream that has become a reality. It provides accessible, informative, spicy, edgy, thought-provoking productions of the works of William Shakespeare. It was started in 1994 when a group of artists were invited to perform in Point Pleasant Park on a volunteer basis and with no publicity, just word of mouth, these performances attracted an audience of over 2,500 in just one weekend. So with resounding support from the community and excellent critical notices the Shakespeare by the Sea Theatre Society was incorporated in 1994.

Many of these performances are held in Point Pleasant Park, right on the banks of the harbour, but are also held on barges that float in the harbour. It has been really innovative in its performances.

It has pioneered a walk-about theatre on the east coast, with landmark productions in the Martello Tower. It has done Martello Tower Hamlet and Martello Tower MacBeth. It did at Sandford Fleming Tower and Henry V and King Lear at the Halifax Citadel. It has been able to work with national landmarks in Halifax to showcase its performances. I have had the opportunity to see several of the performances over the years, and I applaud the work it does.

The riding of Halifax is not just the city of Halifax. It includes many other communities, like Sambro or Ketch Harbour. It also includes a very large community called Spryfield, which is home to several non-profit organizations that do great work, like the Boys and Girls Club of Spryfield, which was started because of a need for more programs for children and youth in the Spryfield community. It is a non-profit community based organization. It provides social recreational and educational programming for children and youth. The programs are identified and brought forward by community.

Also in Spryfield is the Urban Farm Museum Society. This society works to celebrate and promote the agricultural heritage of the community, which is now like a suburb of Halifax. It promotes rural traditions in urban places. The society has established a working farm in Spryfield, right in urban Halifax. It continues the agricultural tradition of this area.

The farm operates on three acres of old Kidston family fields. Through a variety of interpretative programs, hands-on workshops, demonstrations and school programs, the society produces food, offers a teaching venue and promotes local foods that are in season. It also does things like clearing pastures, rejuvenating the orchard and reconstructing old farm buildings. It is quite a feat considering this farm is in downtown Halifax.

What do all of these organizations have in common? They all need funding. They work hand to mouth. Sometimes they get funding from the federal government, sometimes from the provincial government. They rely on donations. They are going from season to season to see if they can manage to cobble together some programs to meet the needs of the communities they are trying to serve.

The lack of commitment to stable funding for non-profit organizations applies whether these organizations are provincially or federally incorporated. Bill C-4 does not address the issue of funding, but it is important to always have this in mind when we speak in the House and it is important to raise a discussion about sustainable funding for these organizations.

With regard to Bill C-4, the one-size-fits-all nature of the federal regulatory reforms could pose a significant problem for federally regulated non-profit organizations. Smaller organizations simply do not have the resources to comply with some of the reforms outlined. It is obvious that a smaller federally regulated organization cannot maintain membership lists in the same way a major organization like the United Way can.

I would like to express my agreement that regulatory changes are needed for this sector. However, any discussion of changes must consider the lack of stable funding with which these groups are faced. I trust the bill will be thoroughly examined at committee and that we can pass a bill that will be in the best interest of this truly Canadian sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions.

Does she not think that there is a great opportunity for the government to implement changes to the tax code that would allow Canada to have the same type of powerful foundations like they have in the United States, which are generators of money, not only for non-profit organizations but also larger initiatives in research and development? In fact, foundations in the U.S. allow substantial sums of money to move forward, for example, the Gates Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and others, that fund not only Canadians who do great work abroad but also other people from various countries.

Does the hon. member believe that here is a missed opportunity for the government to do this, and that it should introduce elements within the bill to allow foundations to have the same type of structure and power that they have in the U.S.?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, earlier when the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca addressed the House, some of his ideas were very interesting to me. I absolutely think this should be discussed at committee. There could be options for this.

I believe many of these non-profit organizations are doing the work that the government should be doing. For example, the steer clean program was mentioned earlier in the House. It is helping to reduce the impacts of climate change, keeping our Kyoto commitments.

While exploring a different tax regime for non-profits might be one thing to look at, we need to also consider how to better fund these organizations that do such great work.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for truly painting a 3-D portrayal of some of the really exciting work that non-profit organizations do in her constituency of Halifax. I look forward to going there and seeing it up close.

My question stems from my experience in working with non-profit organizations in my home area, specifically the Thompson Crisis Centre in Thompson, Manitoba. This is a women's shelter and it has gone above and beyond to provide some of the basic services that women's shelters struggle to offer. The centre is facing some real hardships in terms of possible cutbacks to federal programs, which assist in delivering child care services while women are being counselled. All of us recognize the need for child care in these types of centres if appropriate counsel is to be available for clients.

The difficulty that non-profit organizations such as this one and others encounter is the need to advocate politically to address funding cutbacks and to fight so these cutbacks do not occur. There must be a recognition of the important voice these non-profit organizations must have. They need to point out the gaps and the need for government to step up in terms of its responsibility and support for the important work they do in our communities.

Could I hear the member's thoughts on the political advocacy piece and how this legislation stands to pose some problems in that area?