Libby Davies

[The Economy, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with the figures released today, over a quarter of a million Canadians have been thrown out of work in the last 90 days. In January alone, the increase was three times what was forecasted, leaving 129,000 workers scrambling. This is only the beginning.

Canadians are not looking for whom to blame, they just want to know they are going to get the help they need to weather this economic storm. The parliamentary secretary says that we should get serious. Okay, let us do that.

Will the government finally acknowledge the urgent need to eliminate the two-week waiting period and increase accessibility to EI right now for those in need?

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to second reading of Bill C-4, which deals with not-for-profit organizations. I would note first that the bill first surfaced in the House in 2004 under the then Liberal government. It was never dealt with and it came back as Bill C-262 in 2008 and here it is again. It has been about five years that the bill in various forms has been before the House of Commons.

I want to begin by speaking about the not-for-profit sector. I am very fortunate to represent a riding, Vancouver East, that has a whole diversity of absolutely incredible and amazing not-for-profit organizations, some of which would be under these federal regulations. They perform the most valuable service not only in our local community but nationally.

As we debate the bill we need to pay tribute and acknowledge the incredible value that the not-for-profit sector provides in this country. There has been a very long history in Canada of not-for-profit work. Whether it is in housing, cooperatives, delivery of services, volunteer work, or advocacy, there is a tremendous history in this country of voluntary organizations where people give their all and are literally on the front line delivering services and providing information to the citizens of Canada in many diverse communities.

It is very important for parliamentarians to recognize that if we ever put a price tag on the work that is being done in the voluntary sector we would be talking about billions of dollars. Certainly if these services and programs were being delivered directly by government, we would be talking about billions of dollars. We should recognize that the work that is done by not-for-profits in our communities is something that we benefit from. It is part of a strong civil society. It is part of a strong democratic society. Over the years the biggest struggle and challenge that not-for-profits have had is the struggle to stay in existence, not from a legal point of view, but from a financial point of view. Government funding has been withdrawn and we have seen government programs cut back, federally and provincially, and sometimes even locally, although most often it has been the local government that has had to pick up the slack.

The not-for-profit sector and our non-profit organizations have had to rely more and more on voluntary contributions and donations. They are always scrambling for money. The biggest issue facing the voluntary sector is not 170 pages of Robert's Rules of Order and a regime of putting everyone under one size fits all, it is the question of stable long-term funding. Long gone are the days when non-profit organizations could rely on core funding to continue with their core operations and then expand to whatever programs they were doing. Now every organization, I dare to say, spends probably one-quarter or more of its time writing grant applications, chasing down every small bit of money that they can in order to develop their programs.

In my riding of Vancouver East there are organizations that are literally on the front line. They are literally dealing with life and death situations. These organizations are democratic. They are transparent. Everything that they do is out there for people to see and to become involved in.

In looking at the bill, I have some very serious questions as to why we are so focused on a regulatory regime for not-for-profits when we are completely missing the point of what is the real crux of the issue for non-profits in this country. The NDP, in going through this 170 page bill clause by clause and looking at the incredibly detailed micromanagement requirements that are in there, these organizations will now have to go through various hoops and there are processes and regulations involving a lot of paperwork and reporting requirements. It is absolutely incredible. It is 170 pages of things they have to note and make sure are followed up.

I certainly have a concern that the bill in its current form will make it very difficult to attract new directors and volunteers in the not-for-profit sector. Anybody faced with this massive regulation would say, “I came here to do good work. I came here to make a contribution to my community. I came here to make good decisions. I came here to help people,” and all of a sudden that person is faced with having to deal with a massive bureaucratic regime, where one size fits all right across the country.

We have to seriously question whether or not the bill, if it is adopted in its current form, would have a counter-effect. Maybe it is being put forward from the point of view of transparency and accountability, but it may have the effect of turning people right off and asking why on earth they would get involved in doing this work when there are so many requirements and responsibilities.

I listened to the Conservative member say that the bill is about being transparent and more accountable. That leads one to believe that the status quo is not transparent and is not accountable. There are non-profit organizations that run into trouble. Any group in society from time to time may face difficulties. There are sometimes instances where there are criminal activities taking place. There are all kinds of legislation, measures and protections to deal with that, but the sense that somehow not-for-profit organizations are not transparent and accountable is a very false premise. I certainly want to put that to rest.

Another concern that we have about the bill is that it does not address the relationship between charity status, Revenue Canada and the issue of advocacy. This has been a long-standing debate. There are organizations that are very concerned about the severe limits that are put on them to do advocacy work. Somehow advocacy has become a negative word. It has become a negative component to the work that is done. However, what I see in my community is that the advocacy work, which does not mean that it is partisan, to uphold people's rights, whether it is in legal aid, housing or groups that have been very marginalized, is very important for the not-for-profit sector. This issue has not been dealt with at all.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are getting up to tell me that the time is up and we are going to statements, so I will continue my remarks after question period.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech from the member for Peace River and I have been listening to the debate in the House during question period as well. It seems to me that the debate that is going on focuses on these trade agreements, which have caused enormous problems for Canada. One has to only look at NAFTA and what happened with softwood lumber.

Of course, now the debate has become totally focused on the question of protectionism. It seems to me that what is being missed here is the reality that the steel industry in Canada and the United States is already highly integrated and complementary. What we should be doing is focusing our attention and leverage, as the Canadian government and as Canadians, on working with the reality we have, ensuring that if there is a buy American policy that Canada is exempted from it.

I do not know if the member saw a very good article in today's National Post by Erin Weir, who is the chief economist for the United Steelworkers union that represents both American and Canadian steelworkers, but I think it makes very strong arguments about the North American market and how it is complementary. We should be working to achieve job enhancement in sectors such as steel and automotive.

The other point I would make is that when one has a major stimulus package, one would hope that the emphasis of it is to protect and enhance jobs in our local communities. Yet, we saw nothing of this in the Canadian budget. We saw billions of dollars of expenditure, which the government says it is going to put forward in terms of infrastructure, but there is nothing to emphasize or tell us that those funds will actually be used within Canada to produce Canadian jobs that will benefit people. I ask the member to comment on that.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present about 50 pages of petitions that were collected by members of the Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society of B C.

The petitioners feel very strongly about the issue that they collected the petition on. They urge the Canadian government to end funding of medical experiments on animals in favour of nonviolent, more appropriate, ethical and reliable research methods that are increasingly becoming available. They also call for greater accountability from publicly funded researchers and higher standards of animal treatment more in line with those of European Union members. I am pleased to introduce these petitions today in the House.

[Business of the House, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the questions that were asked by the House leader of the official opposition I would also like to ask a question of the government House leader. The visit of the newly elected President of the United States, President Obama, to Canada is on February 19 and is something that is much welcomed and much anticipated. However, as the government House leader knows, February 19 is not a day that Parliament is sitting, but I am sure that all members would want to hear the President. I would like to ask the government House leader if he would agree that February 19 be designated as a special sitting day so that all members may receive and hear the new President of the United States in this House on his first visit to Canada.

I ask the government House leader if he would designate that as a special sitting day.

[The Economy, January 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have not forgotten that just nine weeks ago the government was blaming the economic downturn on women seeking pay equity, on civil servants who had the right to strike, and on political financing. It was a partisan and mean-spirited approach and it has been the hallmark of that Prime Minister and his government.

After the contempt he has shown for the poor, for the unemployed and for the most vulnerable in our society, why should any Canadian have confidence that he will help the very people he has spent his political career leaving behind?

[The Economy, January 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised mayors infrastructure money but did not deliver. He promised child care spaces but did not come through. He promised to make fuel-efficient cars more affordable and then reneged. He promised police officers a raise and then took it away. He said he would protect consumers from ATM fees but buckled from pressure from the banks.

When it comes to standing up for people, why should any Canadian have confidence in the government now?

[Address in Reply, January 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to hear the member say that she has been listening to Canadians and that the government will deliver. One just needs to look at what has gone on in our large cities with the infrastructure deficit and the lack of housing. What happened to the child care promise? It is beyond belief. Since the government has failed to deliver on any of those questions in all of the time it has been in power, why should we have any confidence that it will deliver this time around? It will yet again let down the people of Canada.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise this point of order as a result of some of the language used, in particular by the member for Peterborough, during question period. The member used language that was incredibly insulting and offensive to members of this House. It is truly disgusting.

We ask the member for Peterborough to withdraw his language, such as the use of the word “traitor”. That is completely out of order in this House. It is offensive to members. He should withdraw that remark. I would ask him to apologize to all members of this House.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this point because it is hard to cover everything in 10 minutes. This was one issue I did want to get to. Again, what we have seen with the economic update is the government trying to manoeuvre and manipulate and slip in some programs that it has always wanted, like selling off public buildings, which are owned by the people of Canada. It is using the rationale of the economic recession before us to get that through and hope that nobody notices.

I agree with the member. The idea that the government will get fair market value for these valuable properties, which have an immense public value, in today's market is ludicrous. Any real estate agent or any expert on real estate will tell us that this is the worst time to do that. Why would we sell off these valuable assets when they should be kept for the benefit of the people of Canada?