Diane Bourgeois

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment about the speech by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He spoke very well and has provided additional details and information about this bill we are discussing.

However, in light of his comments, I would like to point out that, once again, the government has not made plans for developing a passage in the Arctic. Usually, when we plan something—in this case, the opening of a passage, or as another example, the rebuilding of a bridge—there is a planning process. Planning takes place, that is to say that responsibilities are assigned. There are also performance indicators and timelines.

In terms of performance indicators, we could have looked at environmental impact and the impact on communities living in the far north. Unfortunately, that was not done. That is what is lacking in this government. I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Works and Government Services, where officials from various departments come to see us without having done any planning and without examining the impact over the long term of the measures they will implement.

Having said that, and given that the government has us by the throat—we have no choice but to vote for the bill—I hope that it will do more than just pass this bill, and that it will also bring forward plans indicating the real impact of the bill.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that the Government of Canada or Industry Canada came to consult not-for-profit organizations in Quebec. I do know that the former program that recognized not-for-profit organizations under the Liberal government was tossed aside by the Conservative government.

I do not believe that organizations in Quebec are very interested in this bill. First, they are used to coming under the Government of Quebec. They know they will go to the Government of Canada for a number so that they can issue income tax receipts. In Quebec, not-for-profit organizations will not turn directly to the federal government. As a result, they likely did not hear about these consultations. I am close to my organizations and I never heard about them either. Maybe there were consultations in the rest of Canada.

The way not-for-profit organizations are organized in Quebec is very different from the way they are organized in the rest of Canada. We are ahead of the curve and used to doing our own thing, coming under the Government of Quebec and not expecting anything from the federal government. It has never been present, except in the previous legislation where organizations could get a grant. It took three weeks to a month to fill out a 50-page application and get a grant of no more than $1,000 to $5,000.

In answer to my colleague's question, I do not recall any consultations in Quebec.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP.

His question touches on two aspects I have just spoken about. First of all, this bill is at the second reading stage and so will be referred to a committee. I trust that the hon. members in committee will be alert enough to look at the details and the irritants with a potential to be harmful to small not-for-profit organizations.

It is important to refer the bill to committee because there is no mention of classification. I concede the point made by my colleague from the NDP that there are indeed irritants that will be dreadful for the smaller organizations. What is more, the largest ones always end up with the money. In my opinion, this should be discussed in committee.

Finally, it is still a good thing, if only for the small ones, since the large ones will not benefit from the aspects and issues addressed by this bill. The small ones do not have the money and resources, nor the ability to acquire them. If we can clarify the framework within which they operate, that will be one step along the way. When it comes to looking for the money, we will introduce another bill and ask the Liberals to vote against the budget, and we will ask for funds for our organizations.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations. It is clear that, on the surface, this bill seems to be a good one. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the principle underlying this bill.

I listened to the preceding comments. This bill provides a framework for organizations and helps them get organized. It updates an archaic law. Our community organizations need more money, but we do not recognize their true value any more than we do that of not-for-profit organizations. If every not-for-profit organization and every volunteer ceased operations or quit tomorrow, our society would crumble. They keep our social fabric intact. That is why it is a good idea to update the legislation governing them.

This bill is at second reading. I hope that it will get to the committee stage so that the members who are on committees can study it in great detail to ensure that, on the one hand, directors of not-for-profit organizations can enjoy a certain degree of flexibility and openness, and that, on the other hand, the administration of these organizations is transparent.

Bill C-4 modernizes the current Canada Corporations Act. It will consider the financial means and the size of the organization in determining management standards. As the minister said, it will also provide a flexible framework for financial reporting and the establishment of internal bylaws for the organizations it governs.

Not-for-profit organizations need to be more efficient and transparent. We also have to consider the fact that, when a not-for-profit organization asks the minister to be recognized as such, there is a great deal of discretionary power. It looks like this bill eliminates the minister's discretionary power, and that is something we really need.

There is a reason the new Bill C-4 was drafted. Over the past few years, many not-for-profit organizations, as well as the Canadian Bar Association, have examined the problems the archaic law created for not-for-profit organizations. They wanted legislation that was more consistent with the needs of modern not-for-profit organizations. They asked the government to rewrite the legislation, so now we have Bill C-4.

The goal of this bill, according to the minister, is to establish a more modern and transparent framework for these organizations. The operational framework for not-for-profit corporations would be similar to corporate governance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. That is not a bad thing. Quite often, having an archaic piece of legislation regarding not-for-profit organizations means that we have not listened to their requests and priorities.

In more concrete terms, this bill will simplify the incorporation of not-for-profit organizations; clarify the rights and responsibilities of directors, which is an excellent thing itself; and will establish defences for officers and directors in the event of liability. Today, directors, who are quite often also the employers in not-for-profit organizations, are subject to all sorts of grievances and to all sorts of laws that employees or suppliers can use to get them into serious trouble. It is good that they can have more solid defences.

The bill will provide members with increased rights to contribute to the governance of their organization. Perhaps the committee should focus more on this point. That would respond to the requests from some of my colleagues who have said that organizations and their members must have a little more power. The bill will establish a better mechanism to oversee the organization's accounts, leading to transparency.

However, and I would like to draw the House's attention to this point, according to the Canadian Constitution, management of the social economy, volunteerism and community activities fall under provincial jurisdiction. It is important to note that the federal government only has jurisdiction over organizations that do not have provincial purposes. The committee must examine this aspect in order to discern if this bill oversteps its area of jurisdiction and infringes on provincial jurisdictions, namely those of Quebec. At present, the section of the Canada Corporations Act states that the federal minister may grant a charter of incorporation if the corporation thereby created pursues objects of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or other. However, these activities must be under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

We note that clause 4 of the new act does not require a non-profit to state its intended purpose in its articles of incorporation. Thus, it is important that the non-profit's purpose and specific mandate be clearly identified in its articles of incorporation in order to ascertain whether the organization is involved in the jurisdictions of Quebec or of other provinces. It is extremely important and the committee will have to examine that issue.

I am only going to discuss a few clauses of the bill, those that, in my mind, apply to the day-to-day operations of community organizations.

First, part 1 of the bill provides for the incorporation of organizations without share capital for the purposes of carrying on legal activities. That is what the current law permits; there is not much difference. It defines the concept of a soliciting organization as one that solicits funds from the public or a government or any organization that receives private donations or government grants. That is found in part 1.

Part 4 requires organizations to prepare and maintain accounting records. That is very important. I was saying earlier that this bill provides a clear framework for managing a non-profit organization.

Quite often, not-for-profit corporations that have been established for many years must suddenly hold an annual general meeting and change directors. Then the director wants to change certain aspects of the organization's mandate and objectives. The bill establishes a framework in which books must be kept, directors named, and membership lists made available. Thus, there is an obligation for transparency.

With this, transparency is mandatory. First of all, books must be kept, along with a list of the members and directors, and people must be able to access those documents. Quite often, in a not-for-profit corporation, such as an MS society, for example, people are overseen by directors who themselves have MS. Sooner or later, however, their strength will decline. The organization will have to change directors or will no longer have a director. Then what will happen?

The members of such organizations must be known, so that they can be called upon and consulted when it is time for someone else to take up the torch.

Part 5 permits organizations to borrow funds, issue debt obligations and make investments as they see fit. Some not-for-profit organizations have money for research and other purposes. For instance, if a fundraising event is organized for a spinal cord foundation and $200,000 is raised, can that foundation take that money and invest it in research? This gives them a guarantee. It opens a door for them. It gives them both transparency and freedom.

Part 9 stipulates that the organizations must have at least one director and, in the case of soliciting corporations, three directors. That is the minimum. That ensures honesty within the organization and also gives people who support the cause and give money to the organization much greater confidence in the directors. As a result, people will know that there is not just one individual who knows the books and could pocket the corporation's money.

The bill also clearly sets out the obligations of directors and organizations as well as the due diligence defence. I mentioned that earlier. Due diligence clearly states the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the general directors of a not-for-profit foundation or organization. It also gives them a safety net. At present, anyone could suddenly accuse directors of lining their pockets. Directors are not protected from that. And it could just as easily be either true or false. Imagine the ordeal those people have to go through if it is false. They cannot defend themselves; that opportunity does not exist. This measure will afford them a certain amount of security.

Directors and officers of NPOs are currently exposed to numerous liabilities under the provisions of certain pieces of legislation including liability for environmental damages, liability for unpaid salaries, fiduciary duty, and liability for their own negligent actions.

There are many kinds of not-for-profit organizations. Some of them demand huge numbers of hours, huge amounts of energy and listening skills from their volunteers, officers and directors. Quite often, these people are tired and are subject to all sorts of weaknesses and they can be subjected to all sorts of allegations.

Often they work with people who are ill, as well, so they need an established or set management framework for their own protection. As well, not-for-profit organizations cannot always afford lawyers to help or advise them in certain cases. A framework gives them some security.

Another extremely important aspect of this bill is part 10, which provides that an organization's by-laws must set out the conditions of membership. I am talking not just about all the rules for being a member of a not-for-profit organization, but also the rules for holding meetings of the membership.

As I said, often, these people work in difficult environments, and they are not as procedurally oriented as we are here in this House, so they need some guidance. They want to do everything they can, but they do not always have accountants or lawyers to help them. Part 10 lays some ground rules, which are good to have.

Part 11 provides that an organization must make its financial statements available to its members. This is extremely important. When organizations are transparent and open and make their books available, they are less likely to be criticized, and people often have questions about an organization's financial situation, whether there is money to carry on or invest, or simply what the organization is doing. It is only natural that organizations, especially NPOs, should disclose what they have.

In my opinion, part 12, which pertains to financial reviews, has to do with to confidence in the directors. Small not-for-profit organizations cannot afford to pay an auditor, so they will often work with accountants who provide their services free of charge as a way of giving to the organization. It is their way of helping the organization. Of course, large organizations like the United Way—which raises $8 million, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million or $100 million, I would imagine—must be audited, but their situation is different.

Part 14 describes the process for liquidation and dissolution of a corporation incorporated under this legislation. That is very important. Once, in my little corner of the world, in my region, a local organization had to close its doors when a regional organization took over. What is to be done in a situation like that? I should point out that not-for-profit organizations do not necessarily have the means, the physical resources, or the staff needed to liquidate or dissolve the corporation. This bill provides guidelines for that process.

Part 16 covers protection and security. It sets out the offences and penalties imposed in case of an infraction, particularly with respect to false and misleading statements and the misuse of information from a list of members or other register kept by the organization. Every NPO administrator must inform the organization's members, administrators or shareholders, as the case may be, of this provision. Members' names must not be given to other organizations, such as businesses, that might misuse them.

This bill is very important. The committee will have to examine this matter as well as the constitutional issue with respect to encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.

The committee will have to examine whether this bill provides enough flexibility and permissiveness to not-for-profit organizations to allow them to grow transparently and accountably in the best interest of the people who use the services.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his explanations of Bill C-4. His activities in his previous life contributed a lot to his understanding of this bill.

I have a question for him. The minister introducing the bill would seem to be saying that the bill would promote transparency and require not-for-profit corporations to be accountable. I would ask my colleague to explain how this bill achieves the objective set by the minister.

[Michèle Demers, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we were dismayed to learn yesterday of the sudden death of Ms. Michèle Demers, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

A social worker by training, she became politically active as a shop steward in 1982 while working at the veterans' hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. In 2005, she became the 50th president of a union that represents 55,000 members. She was re-elected in December 2007.

Throughout her career, this union activist championed the right to collective bargaining, funding of the sciences for the public good—especially in connection with food safety and hazardous products, union-management consultation and dialogue and the renewal of the public service.

For all those involved in defending the rights of workers, Michèle Demers will remain a source of inspiration who set an exceptional standard.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. Pay equity is usually an issue men dare not touch. The fact is that women are on an equal footing with men and do exactly the same work, while there are often tasks that men would not perform.

That having been said, one ongoing measure in this budget which is despicable is the lack of automatic recognition of pay equity. We have pay equity in Quebec. That has gone a long way to helping women.

I think that including pay equity in a package deal of negotiations is just rotten. It ignores the important work that women do in Canada. And women will make the Conservative Party pay for that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for the very perceptive question. I would point out that she states in her preamble that Quebec is a leader in terms of day care. Quebec is still fighting to obtain equalization transfers, money which we are entitled to receive.

With the current budget, we will lose $1 billion in equalization payments, an amount we probably could have used to expand our day care system.

I find it unfortunate that women in the rest of Canada do not have a day care system such as ours. Women and women's groups are calling for one. But there exists an ideology that prefers to give money to women—small amounts of money—to keep them at home so that they do not pay into a pension fund and do not have some freedom.

If they were truly listening to citizens and to women, they would give them day care centres and the budget would include measures to enable women to have some freedom of choice and to train day care professionals such as those in Quebec. It would be another means of keeping the economy going.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-10, which, if passed, will implement the budget that was tabled a few days ago.

First, this budget is full of smoke and mirrors. It is a sham. It throws a lot of money around, but it does not help individuals. This budget will help some multinationals, but will leave seniors, women and individuals in the lurch. Even though part 1 of the bill does contain various measures targeting personal taxes, a person will have to earn $85,000 or more in 2008 to get a $317 tax break. That is not even a dollar a day. In addition, not everyone earns $85,000 or more. On average, people earn between $40,000 and $60,000 and will therefore save about $200 or $235 for the year. That is not a huge tax cut.

As well, people who have children and earn $2,000 more than their current salary can be sure their child tax benefit will not go down. But when someone is trying to make ends meet, works hard or does overtime, he or she will make a lot more than $2,000.

Economists agree that tax cuts are not very effective. On page 239 of his budget, the Minister of Finance himself says that this tax cut will be ineffective because it is a weak economic stimulus, compared to money for low-income households or infrastructure investments.

Another measure is not so bad. The Conservative government is increasing the old age credit for seniors, who could get $150 more. All in all, individuals could get $300. Seniors who do not earn $85,000 could get a tax cut of about $100, $300 at most. That is not really much help for individuals.

There is also no help for forestry or manufacturing companies. The government likes to boast that it is helping companies, but our manufacturing and forestry companies are not turning a profit. How are they supposed to use tax credits to invest in their company? They cannot. They cannot get a tax abatement because they are not turning a profit, so this does not help our companies.

Something that comes as a real surprise is the Minister of Finance's position on his commitment to get rid of tax havens. People are not stupid. Companies make money here in Canada, then put that money into accounts in other countries. Those companies should be paying taxes here so that we can have more equitable distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, in 2007, around the time when the Minister of Finance said that he was about to take action against tax evasion, he put together an expert panel, ostensibly to examine the minister's ideas for tackling tax evasion.

All of a sudden, people realized that the panel was reversing the minister's decision and persuading him to blindly accept its recommendations not to do anything about tax havens because, it said, our companies had to be able to deal with international competition. I find that more than a little strange. Honest, hard-working taxpayers, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, find it appalling that these companies are granted tax exemption and can send their money elsewhere. Unfortunately, members of other parties in the House voted for this. People are appalled.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the single securities commission. We know that, in Quebec, the securities commission falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. According to this budget, the government plans to use this bill to set up a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office. That, too, is pretty strange. Quebeckers, among others, find the current Conservative government's position disrespectful, and they are wondering just how much their Liberal Party colleagues will put up with. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

One group is proposing that a federal securities regulation agency be created. The report proposes various things, including various mechanisms to implement the project without agreement from Quebec and the other provinces. This expert panel is also proposing that the federal government use legal recourse. But, in response to questions in the House, the minister stated that we would have the freedom to choose whether to join a single securities commission. Does it seem that we will have the choice?

We know that in the end they will force our hand. Our companies that want to do business will also have to join this single securities commission, even if they already belong to the one in Quebec. I wonder when it will stop, this poaching that ends by forcing them to be part of a single securities commission. I find it perverse.

This is another trap in the budget. The Conservatives have a habit of that. This is the second time that one of their budgets has quietly passed another small element.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois will strongly oppose this single securities commission. Even Quebec's National Assembly came to a consensus. I do not understand how the Quebec members of the Conservative and Liberal parties can accept this when even their own National Assembly is against it. They will have to explain themselves sooner or later.

The question of infrastructure also has some traps. Our municipalities have to pay as much as the federal and provincial governments. Each will pay one third. This is not clearly stated in the document, but the municipalities have to be aware of this.

This budget proposes a collection of amendments and measures that the Bloc Québécois will vote against because they do not take the National Assembly's consensus into consideration.

[Quebec Teachers' Week, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec Teachers' Week takes place from February 1 to 7. Today I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of dedicated teachers in Quebec who play such a skilful role in the transfer of knowledge.

The teaching profession often comes under criticism. However, we must remember that we owe our education and that of our children to teachers. They gave us a wealth of knowledge, values and skills that have made us successful today.

School officials and parents rely on our teachers to meet the challenges inherent in education. Teaching, like learning, is not always easy, but both are essential. It does not matter what subject or what grade is being taught; teachers deserve an A+.

Their work is appreciated. We recognize their abilities and the quality of the work they do to ensure that as many of our youth as possible succeed. They have taught us, they continue to—