Brian Masse

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Mississauga--Streetsville with regard to his bill. I will give it due consideration.

The hon. member talked about looking forward. I tabled my own private member's bill which deals with a particular issue in Canada which is unique in the world. That is the automatic stay of injunction that a pharmaceutical or patent holder gets from actual legislation. They automatically get 24 months without having to demonstrate any type of patent infringement. I believe that is one of the reasons we have had some problems in our industry on the pharmaceutical side and the generic side.

How does the hon. member feel about the automatic 24 months and the fact that Canada is the only country in the world that has this current legislation?

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have a concern that I would like to express and one on which I would like the hon. member's comments.

We know that child poverty and the poverty of women is tied to our employment insurance system. Right now approximately 35% of women will never be able to collect from premiums that they have to put into the system. It has been a deplorable state. It has been a cash cow for the government and it has been off the backs of workers, predominantly women and children who do not get the supports necessary in times of need.

I would like to ask for the member's opinion, in terms of our current employment insurance system, on whether or not it needs to be fixed. What in particular would she agree to do to fix that system?

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the national child care benefit clawback that happened in Ontario was an atrocious, egregious attack on working people, and also children when child poverty was rising at the time.

I would ask him to give his perspective as to why the federal government did nothing and is still not doing anything to stop the clawbacks from happening? The government could have put political pressure on the Harris government to ensure that it would have benefited many people, but instead it went to political goals and some waste. I would like to have the member's comments about that situation.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to ask this question of the previous Liberal speaker, but maybe I can ask my colleague. In her comments she was discussing this unholy alliance between the Conservative members and the Bloc and was really fixated on that. That is intriguing because the Minister of Transport was a founding member of the Bloc and is now taking the lead for the government on this file. I find it difficult to comprehend in terms of the Liberal strategy.

I would ask her to talk about this unholy alliance because I think that here in Parliament we are supposed to work for the betterment of all Canadians and we have shown some good movement on that. I think this is a case where we could actually have some progression. I would ask her to comment on that.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of the member for Churchill. She did a good job explaining the misconception that we have no control over our authorities. I would like her to expand on those comments. An important part in this debate is that the will of Parliament cannot be carried out by the airport authority or it will contest the will of Parliament. I find that to be such a weak excuse for taking action that is unacceptable.

In addition to the land planning issue in this discussion, the Minister of Transport identified that there might be a use for the land industrially. We have watched a lot of our farmland being devoured by urban sprawl. That is a big problem for a number of different municipalities across the country. We are losing an opportunity to have a strong agricultural community.

It is appropriate for the land would be restored to the farming institution, and realize the success of the past. Right now that land is leased, which undermines family traditions and lifestyles of farming. By returning it, those families would then have control of the land and the soil.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to even comprehend the situation here. We have the Minister of Transport debating the Bloc, which he helped found. He has switched back and forth a number of times. Maybe we will see something happen again, but it shows how unusual the situation has become here.

In terms of duplicity and of having one standard and changing to another, the Minister of Transport refused to answer the question put by the member for Halifax about the fact that the government is disposing of public housing for our defence. At the same time, the Minister of Public Works is looking at disposing our public buildings and institutions, yet at the same time he wants to protect that footprint.

I would like to ask the hon. member about that duplicity. It is an important part of this debate. On the one hand, the government thinks that it should actually preserve this footprint that has been expropriated from people, and at the same time, it is not willing to commit to a significant need of assuring that our employees have places to work, have a good environment, and also have affordable housing. So there is a demand, and the government wants to get rid of those facilities. Where there is not, it wants to maintain them. I find that hypocritical.

[World Trade Organization, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that we have to get this straight and get it right and that is what I have been asking for since 2002. This is why I find it very difficult to accept promises.

The minister said specifically on November 2:

Over the next couple of weeks we will be putting together the final touches on an automotive industry strategy for all of Canada.

That was within two weeks and we are on the third week today. I understand that we do need to have organization and meetings with the different departments to have the file progress, but at the same time we have important opportunities. For example, there is GM's Project Beacon right now.

Taxpayers deserve to understand the transparency of supporting procurement and renewing the auto industry. That is why I think this government needs to be held to the fire: to make sure it actually completes the progress it claims is happening on the file. The minister said it could be done in a couple of weeks and I will not be satisfied unless we actually hear some public discourse and greater commitment to the auto industry, because verbatim does not do it anymore.

[World Trade Organization, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to follow up on a question I asked in the House of Commons on November 2. I was asking for a response from the Minister of Industry with regard to an auto policy. At the time I gave a reference of some dates, asking for an auto policy going back to 2002. The minister at that time said he would have something together but it was going to take a couple of weeks. Since that time it has been three weeks and we have yet to hear from the minister.

To provide some context, I first want to touch on a couple of things that have been happening over the years and also in that timeframe where people out in the community in business and labour as well as organizations are very much interested in advancing Canada's automotive strategic position to make sure that we are going to be competitive in the world, and also that we are going to be able to move our industry in an environmental way that really will benefit not only our producers, our manufacturers and our employment but also our environment.

Since 2002 I have heard from three separate ministers that they would move on auto policy but I have yet to see action. There is a history of this. I would say that the CAW needs to be congratulated for its original position, “Getting Back in Gear”, which was the first comprehensive paper on auto policy advocating for an active role in the government since the collapse of the auto pact.

We worked with the CAW, Greenpeace and David Suzuki to make sure that we had a green auto policy in this last election. There was great interest in the creation of manufacturing jobs related to renewing our industry through the environment.

Second, what precipitated my question was a recent policy which was a call for action. The Canadian Automotive Partnership Council has finished its last draft of a call for a national strategy on auto policy. In it there are five suggestions at the top of the list; there are others that are part of the list but it is pushing for the government to act on some and have graded some favourable but others very low. We need to make sure that those graded very low get the appropriate supports.

Last, since that time the Sierra Club was host for a day on the Hill where we talked about environmental conditions, auto policy and the procurement of a new strategy.

Therefore, my question for the parliamentary secretary is to find out exactly when we are going to see this auto policy. The minister has committed to it publicly in this chamber. He said that he would have something within a couple of weeks. He has indicated to me in other discussions that he does want to move on this file, but we need more than just rhetoric. We need to make sure that we are going to have an actual policy, because we have seen lost opportunities. From my community we have witnessed the lost opportunity with DaimlerChrysler. The Liberals basically botched the file. I would give the government credit for recently being able to actually do a deal with Ford in Oakville, which was very important for that community and also for this country.

Finally, we need to have a transparent auto policy which makes sure that the industry, consumers and also this country understand the importance of the auto industry and also the accountability of addressing the subsidization that is happening across this country and across the world and is costing us auto jobs.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak about the bill, but I also want to speak about the process of Bill C-21, an act respecting not for profit corporations and other corporations without share capital.

This is a process that has been very frustrating for opposition members. The government tabled the bill and did not even have briefings available before it introduced it in the House of Commons. The bill is 160 pages long and very thorough. It is described in a small summary by the government as complex and technical. There have not been the appropriate supports that are necessary to have the best debate possible.

There are 18,000 not for profit organizations that could be affected by the bill. It is very important that we have a good process that will allow questions and direction in debate in addition to amendments that are necessary to improve the legislation. I am disappointed in the government not doing that.

I am reserving judgment on whether or not I will be recommending support of the bill to go to committee at this point in time. A number of things are still waiting. There are information kits that are supposed to provide essential elements that are still outstanding. We have not seen them. We have not seen any regulations being prepared as well.

The bill is an update from the early 1900s. We would have expected at least some of those things to be completed if there was going to be this rush to get into the House of Commons and then into committee.

I will spend a little time talking about the bill and what it does and what it does not do. One of the key elements is that it will provide a framework that applies to not for profit organizations and corporations without share capital. In terms of the proposed framework, it deals only with the narrow scope of the broad regulatory concerns of the sector itself, that is, the voluntary sector which is so important to Canadians.

The bill does not deal with any of the broader concerns that the sector has expressed, for example, securing long term financing, clarifying and improving the charitable status process, and also addressing advocacy needs that were certainly expressed by the organizations during the voluntary service initiative. I was part of that initiative, participating in my local community and very much involved in that process.

The regulatory regime may well be outdated, but it is unlikely that many of the not for profit organizations wanted to see the Robert's Rules of Order cleaned up first as opposed to the other important initiatives that are facing the industry; that is, a lack of ongoing sustainable funding and accountability that has been issued through different changing practices required by them when funding becomes available with strings and conditions attached.

That is something I hear on a daily basis from not for profit organizations. It is the ability to carry out changes in government legislation, changes in regulations that they are supposed to be able to accommodate under the current budgets and financial constraints. I know my community and other communities across the country are increasingly under pressure to fundraise.

Some of these expectations, in terms of new Liberal requirements, can be very good in many respects, but if they do not have the appropriate resources for accounting as well as accountability and transparency then those organizations have to pull from their existing resource base which is very difficult to do. They would fundraise for people or an organization with a specific cause and then request that the money go to accounting or some other type of department that does not see the direct result of their dollars going to advance a particular social cause in their community.

That is the frustration that the sector has expressed to me on a regular basis and what I have seen myself working in the sector for 10 years.

The bill will incorporate not for profit corporations. They will be able to apply for incorporation and define the rights and responsibilities of directors, officers and members, report their finances and administrative processes and also propose new provisions of director liability. Those are the key elements of the bill. Once again, this came as part of the voluntary service initiative.

There are also clear rules around the director liability that provides a standard of care approach and provides for due diligence. For many organizations this is critical in being able to attract the appropriate directors that they see fit. At the same time, if they do not have the appropriate resources to meet the expectations of the government on these matters, then they are going to have to pull from their existing resource base and that is going to affect the services that they provide to people.

I would like to point out some specific organizations so that people understand what we are talking about. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that there are 18,000 approximately organizations that would be affected by this bill. They include business and consumer associations, airport and harbour authorities, community based organizations, charitable organizations, private foundations and religious groups. All of those organizations would be affected by this legislation.

There does not appear to be a willingness by the government to provide the resources to those groups and organizations to deal with the changes that the bill is going to mandate. That is something of a concern. If we cannot get that in Parliament, it is hard to believe that those 18,000 organizations will get it themselves.

It gets very complicated because some of these organizations are very small. However, it does not matter if they are small or large, they will have to comply with these new rules. If they do not have the technical expertise, it will frustrate some of the smaller organizations that are important to social movements and that take care of people.

A specific example is a local legion would be required to vote on matters in the same prescribed way as that of the Toronto Airport Authority. Small anti-poverty groups would be required to pass resolutions and record them in the same way as the United Way. The Lions Club would have to maintain its membership lists in the same way as the Red Cross.

That again goes to the supports that we believe should be appropriately installed in this bill so the government has the resources to assist those organizations. This would ensure that they would not become frustrated or have problems in following the bill, which later on could lead to them having difficulty in attracting new leaders and new participants. If there is some due diligence that they cannot comply with or if they do not have the appropriate resources for that, it could make it very difficult for them to grow and move forward. When groups are supported, they flourish. They also make considerable contributions, whether it be in poverty, in social justice or in religious organizations. They need those necessary supports. I am not convinced the government is willing to do that. If it will not do it here, what type of guarantee do we have it would do it abroad or anywhere else?

I want to talk about a couple other parts of the bill. One thing the government seems obsessed with is the concept of smart regulations. It throws that term out continually. Smart regulations means something to the government in terms of what it wants to produce and get out for people. However, to people, it means regulation changes. When the government talks about smart regulations, it wants accounting practices that fit its agenda.

What smart regulations means to me is the ability for groups and organizations, whether they be a business or not for profits, to have the best accounting practices that meet their needs and to ensure that there is no duplication or conflicts with government legislations. Smart regulations require two parties. The government uses that jargon. It is obsessed with the terminology. However, it does not recognized that two partners are needed to make that type of structure work efficiently.

I want to touch on some of the things the bill does not address. I mentioned in my preamble that it does not deal with the reduced amount of funding. The government has brought forward a number of different programs with a lot of terms and conditions which also do not provide for adequate supports.

I worked for a number of years with Youth Service Canada projects, which were fantastic for the community. However, they always had to be renewed after six or seven months, and a lot of time was wasted. As opposed to having due diligence with organizations that were very accountable, we had to ensure that we accounted for all the dollars. However, we simply did not have enough so we had to seek out partners. We were very fortunate to have an over 90% success ratio for returning individuals to the workforce or to school, but we spent far too much time having to prove our case for ongoing funding.

I also want to talk about a healthy civil society. The different not for profit organizations have expressed to me their concern with the current 10% rule of the government in terms of advocacy and the vagueness around that. In my opinion there has been far too much political pressure put on organizations so they cannot advance their cause. It is very much a part of a healthy democracy. Those organizations that do speak up must have the ability to do so without intimidation and with the due respect necessary to ensure their causes do well.

A traditional institution that has done well, with strong advocacy, is the United Way, as well as other groups and organizations beneath it. When strong advocates speak out for social programs for Canadians, better solutions are found to some of the most difficult challenges we face.

I will conclude by expressing my disappointment that the government has proposed to move this bill forward in such haste, without due diligence and without respect for the members of the House of Commons. It also affects the legislation we could have on this important initiative. I believe it needs to have more than a particular focus. It needs to be full and broad ranged.

[Privacy, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, then why has the President of Treasury Board insisted in reference that our current legislation protects our privacy? That is not the case and not what the commissioner is testifying.

If he is not willing to do the job, call a privacy summit and implement legislation that protects Canadians, will he step aside and let somebody else do the job?