Robert Vincent

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about giving us a choice. The choice he is giving us reminds me somewhat of a person who would receive his or her paycheque and be told by a neighbour, “You should give me your paycheque and I will tell you how you should spend it.”

I believe that the person who worked for that paycheque should be free to spend it as he or she pleases.

The parliamentary secretary would have us believe that we have a choice. However, it is basically a provincial jurisdiction. Therefore the government does not even need to do the thinking for us. It has enough thinking to do to take care of its own business without having to meddle in somebody else's business.

Since it is a provincial jurisdiction, we do not need the Conservatives to tell us what to do. They should work on other issues, like the economic crisis. I think it would be much better for everybody if they focused on something that would be really useful to workers, like the program for older worker adjustment.

There are far more important things than trying to find solutions or trying to create institutions just for the sake of it. This area falls under provincial jurisdiction. The government should really focus its efforts on initiatives that are relevant, not irrelevant.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague is quite right. We could have pushed a little further from this side. People can do all the landscaping, lay all the asphalt and do all the redecorating they want, but they still need the money to do all those things. While this government went about giving tax breaks and trying to improve the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, it was completely off the mark. By ignoring the most vulnerable and giving nothing to seniors, only one segment of society can benefit from these tax breaks linked to renovations.

I wish to reiterate that it is important to understand that the Conservative government's measures, supported by the Liberal government, did not produce the desired results. The target group was our most vulnerable citizens and the government was unable to hit the mark.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member has struck a nerve on the topic of employment insurance. I would like to point out that only 46% of people meet the requirements to qualify for employment insurance. That being said, there can be any number of measures, but one must qualify in order to be eligible. Even if people were given 90% or 100% of their salary, less than half of all people can receive EI benefits.

If the two week waiting period were eliminated, that would be a step in the right direction. However, much more is needed. The Bloc Québécois proposed specific improvements to the employment insurance system. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not think it wise to move forward on this. They voted for the current budget, which in no way meets these demands.

I hope the government will soon listen to reason and amend the Employment Insurance Act to give more people the opportunity to qualify for employment insurance.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the key issues in the recent Conservative-Liberal budget. The new Liberal Party leader's about-face sets us back to square one. Once again we clearly see that no federalist party is capable of understanding Quebec's real interests.

During his first term, the Conservative Prime Minister appeared to show some openness with the supposed recognition of the Quebec nation, but we know what happened next: cuts to not-for-profit organizations, to economic development and to culture. It is all well and good to talk about nationhood, but a nation without culture is not really a nation.

Let us turn our attention to employment insurance. The Prime Minister requested that Parliament be prorogued. One might have hoped that he would use the time to find solutions to meet the needs of Quebeckers. Rumours propagated by Quebec backbenchers and ministers suggested that the Conservatives would be more sensitive to the demands of our unemployed workers. We had two minimum demands to help them: eliminate the two week waiting period and make the employment insurance system more accessible. In response, we were told there would be no changes. Unemployed workers, in the midst of a crisis, are faced with the stress of surviving for two, four or even six weeks with no income, that is, if they even qualify. In a burst of generosity, the Conservatives decided to add five weeks. How can people benefit from those five weeks if they do not even qualify? Nevertheless, we support that measure. It is a small step in the right direction, but we will continue to demand major changes to the employment insurance system.

If we want to make major changes to employment insurance, we have to think of the unemployed. The government has never given a moment's thought to the unemployed. Let me explain. The government says that it will allocate a billion dollars to retraining workers, but we have to be careful here. For who can say, today, what the jobs of tomorrow will be? I do not think that the government knows that right now. Last September and October, the government did not even know that there was going to be a deficit. So I do not think it knows exactly what kind of jobs will be available in two years. The Conservatives are about to spend a billion dollars on something they do not understand. They are about to spend taxpayers' money without a real plan in mind.

When the last budget was tabled, and even when we came back after the election campaign, the only political party that had a costed, balanced budget to propose was the Bloc Québécois. The other three parties, the federalists, had no budget. The government in power had to submit two economic statements and two budgets to come up with a concrete plan that was able to satisfy the Liberals, who leapt at the opportunity to support it.

Still we are talking about people in need, particularly workers. That reminds me of the program for older worker assistance that the government flatly rejected. It would have been a big step forward in helping people 55 and older who lose their jobs because of plant closures or massive layoffs. Such a program would have enabled them to live with dignity until retirement. But the government has no interest in helping these people find new jobs, so they have to go on welfare. They still have kids in university and house payments they can no longer make. Take, for example, a 58-year-old with a grade nine education who loses his job. I would really like our Conservative friends to explain how that person can be retrained, how they plan to find him another job, or what kind of training they can give him. I still have my doubts.

This program would have accomplished two things. First, as I mentioned earlier, it would have bridged older workers to their retirement at age 65. It would also have freed up jobs for younger workers. With economic recovery, there would be more jobs available. However, the government ignored this and I am extremely disappointed to see that they think only of themselves.

Then there are tax cuts. Does anyone benefit other than those who do not need them? The tax cuts should have targeted workers with the lowest salaries; instead, they benefit workers with the highest. The government wants to help people but they are not being practical.

Furthermore, they have again overlooked our seniors. What tax cuts were they given? To benefit from a tax cut, you have to pay tax. If you do not pay tax, you cannot use a tax cut. That is obvious. The majority of people who live below the poverty line get nothing, not even one dollar. Seniors received a mere two to three additional dollars. Some people in my riding said to me, “Rather than increasing pensions by $2, they should have kept that money and given it to those who need it even more.”

There are even more serious issues with this budget. Agriculture is mentioned. That is another problem. I have been here four and a half years. Every year, over the past three or four years, there has been talk of how to eliminate supply management. I think they have found a solution and I will read a passage about this. It refers to tariffs on milk proteins: “The federal government is issuing these regulations to comply with a ruling of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the CITT. Upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, it is a very serious ruling that could negatively affect the supply management system.”

How did they manage to do such a thing? This came about following a misunderstanding between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canada Border Services Agency. The two had different classifications for milk protein concentrates with more than 85% concentration. The result was that a Swiss business, Advidia, was able to take its case to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and challenge the regulations that classified its Promix 372B products under a tariff line which is tariff free as well as under the more expensive tariff line 0404. The Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the business, creating a dangerous precedence and shaking the very foundation of our supply management system, which relies on rigorous protection of our borders.

The Bloc Québécois cannot oppose these regulations because they are intended to bring us into compliance with a ruling from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal. But I can guarantee that the Bloc will continue to fight to fully protect the supply management system by pressuring Canada's lead negotiators at the WTO to not make any concessions that would undermine, in any way, the supply management system.

As we can see, the Conservative government is not responding to Quebec's expectations, be it in terms of employment insurance, agriculture, the forestry and manufacturing sectors, tax reductions or the unilateral creation of a Canadian securities commission.

Basically, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied with the majority of the points mentioned in Bill C-10. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill.

[Aerospace Industry, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, some job losses are more surprising than others and less publicized. This is the case for the job cuts in the aerospace sector. First, it was Bell Helicopter and now Bombardier Aerospace has announced the layoff of 710 employees in the Montreal area alone. Another leader of the Quebec economy has fallen prey to the economic crisis and the failure of the Conservatives in Quebec to take remedial action.

What was the response of the Minister of Industry this week when questioned about this sector in particular? On February 3, he announced that all was well with this industry in Quebec. On the eve of the 710 layoffs, he confirmed that the sector was a global competitor and that the Conservatives would continue to support it. But what are they really doing?

The Bloc Québécois fears that the Conservatives will offer the aerospace industry the same support the forestry and manufacturing sectors received in the recent budget—a mere pittance.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right, and that is what I was saying to my hon. colleague from the NDP.

Strengthening the act in this way will give volunteers greater confidence in the organization, because it will also tighten up the rules and procedures.

People will not feel constrained by these organizations. Some people said that not-for-profit organizations were not accountable to their members. Now, because this act will ensure greater transparency, once a month or on a quarterly basis, members will be able to consult all the books, statements of accounts, expenses and payrolls. This transparency will satisfy all volunteers. Volunteers will therefore have greater confidence in these organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP. She is quite right. This bill will help the voluntary sector. Part of this bill provides greater protection for directors. In the past, directors were not keen on the idea of being held liable for the organization. New measures would make them a little less liable and would help them defend themselves. These measures did not exist in the past and, as a result, some volunteers did not want to take on the role of director or chair of these organizations.

Furthermore, many members complained that they did not have enough information. They did not know how the organization spent its money. With this bill, people will know what organizations goals are and how the money is being spent. The names of the people who work for the organization will also be protected. They will not be disclosed right and left. I believe that amending this bill will encourage many more volunteers to become involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his very pertinent question. He saw the relevance of this file and of Bill C-4, which is no minor bill. Not-for-profit organizations have asked us to change and amend many points for the past 10 years because the current legislation no longer meets their needs. It must be updated. Today's reality is not the same as yesterday's.

My colleague is wondering if every point and type of organization must have a concrete goal and definition, be it in terms of heritage, sports or something else. These goals must be consolidated so that we are not all over the map as we have been and as we continue to be because the legislation has not been amended. I can assure my colleague from Alfred-Pellan that we will study his point carefully and specifically in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is absolutely right to raise these points because, when examining the provisions of the act, the committee will have to study 20 points.

In addition, he is perfectly right to say that the latitude of the governor in council is too great with respect to this bill.

When the bill is studied in committee, we will make some recommendations to the government. Therefore, I believe that the government should bend to stakeholders.

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

Mr. Speaker, since this the first time I have risen to speak since the session began, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Shefford for trusting in me for the third time to defend their interests in Ottawa.

For several years, a number of representatives of not-for-profit corporations have been pressing to have the Canada Corporations Act modernized. In the past decade, numerous people have taken part in consultations, while others have made written submissions to Industry Canada calling for rapid amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. In recent years, some people have expressed concern that the Canada Corporations Act is out of date and no longer meets the needs of the not-for-profit sector. Stakeholders have publicly called for reform of the act and, in 1999, the task force on the voluntary sector, which was created by the federal government, called for improvements to the regulatory framework governing this sector. Industry Canada's proposal to modernize the Canada Corporations Act forms part of the task force's plan.

In July 2000, Industry Canada released a consultation paper entitled Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law. After releasing this document, the department held a series of round tables in cities across the country to look at the ideas in the document and consider various legislative options. The government then made concrete proposals to reform the not-for-profit corporations legislation.

On November 15, 2004, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-21, which never reached second reading. On June 13, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-62, which was similar to what the Liberals had tabled. With the hasty election call last September, this bill died on the order paper. On December 3, 2008, a similar bill was introduced for first reading by the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism). Once again, it died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on December 4. Finally, the Conservative minister introduced the same legislation on January 28 as Bill C-4.

Since 2004, both Liberal and Conservative governments introduced various bills that all died on the order paper. In spite of everything, it is quite clear that there is a common desire on both sides of the House to modernize the Canada Corporations Act, especially since the bills introduced by previous governments have all been very similar.

To briefly summarize Bill C-4, its primary aim is to propose new legislation on not-for-profit corporations that would establish a more modern and transparent framework for such organizations. The operational framework for not-for-profit corporations would be similar to corporate governance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The new act would gradually repeal the Canada Corporations Act and would replace parts II, III and IV of that act.

According to the minister herself, Bill C-4 will cut administrative costs facing not-for-profit corporations and will strengthen and clarify the governance rules that apply to these corporations. In more concrete terms, this bill will simplify the incorporation of not-for-profit corporations; clarify the rights and responsibilities of directors; establish defences for directors and officers in the event of liability; provide members with increased rights to contribute to the governance of their corporation; and establish a better mechanism to oversee the corporations' accounts.

Although the bill is complex, the new framework that will govern not-for-profit corporations should considerably simplify and clarify the role of these corporations in our society, both for their members and directors and for the general public.

It is exceedingly clear that extensive changes must be made to the Canada Corporations Act. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle underlying the bill. However, it is evident that some aspects of the bill must be examined in committee.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill for a number of reasons. First of all, the process for establishing a not-for-profit will be considerably streamlined and much more transparent.

The act currently requires not-for-profit corporations to keep detailed accounts of their activities but does not require disclosure of these accounts. Bill C-4 requires not-for-profits to make their financial records available to their members, directors and officers, as well as to the Director. This will permit directors and officers to better manage and supervise the corporation, to monitor the financial situation of the organization between annual meetings and to ensure that funds are used only in the pursuit of the stated goals and objectives.

The bill also includes a provision to ensure a fair balance between transparency and accountability on one hand and privacy on the other. An organization can apply to the Director for an exemption from disclosing its accounts to its members.

The Canada Corporations Act currently allows anyone to obtain the membership list of a not-for-profit organization. The act sets out the possible uses of such a list. Bill C-4, Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, will give this right only to the organization's members, creditors and directors.

This provision will facilitate communication among members and enable them to better coordinate their activities; it will require administrators to maintain an up-to-date membership list, thereby further facilitating logistics and administration; and it will protect the members of certain types of not-for-profit organizations from the unauthorized use of such lists. The same provisions were included in the Canada Corporations Act to punish such offences. The problem would be resolved at the source by not making such lists public. Any person wishing to consult the list would have to sign a statutory declaration limiting the ways in which the list is to be used. The bill also calls for a fine of up to $25,000 or up to six months in prison or both for anyone using a list for unauthorized purposes. This reminds us of the CRTC's do not call list. We know that such lists have been sold for about $50 for 6,000 names. People wanted their names on the CRTC list because they did not want to be bothered by telemarketers. This provision would compensate for the cost of updating the lists by removing the requirement to make them available to the general public.

Directors and officers of not-for-profit organizations are currently exposed to numerous liabilities under the provisions of certain pieces of legislation including liability for environmental damages, liability for unpaid salaries, fiduciary duty, and liability for their own negligent actions. They should be relieved of those liabilities. Thus, the new legislation addresses the liabilities of not-for-profit directors.

Incorporation creates a legal entity that can be held liable. The organization will protect these people from personal liability when acting according to their responsibilities as defined in the legislation.

That is covered in subsection 37(1).

The bill includes a clear definition of the standards for diligence that do not hold a director liable if he or she has acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation.

That is covered in subsection 149(1)

Directors may use the defence of reasonable diligence, which gives them a remedy against unfounded complaints.

This is found in clause 150.1.

There are new provisions to indemnify directors against costs, charges and expenses incurred in respect of an unfounded proceeding or of incidents where the corporation believes the director's actions warrant indemnification.

These provisions are found in clauses 151.1 and 151.5.

The problem with this sort of provision is that highly qualified officers who know the system well might exonerate themselves by invoking the due diligence defence and thus make the members of the organization pay collectively for their errors.

With regard to efficiency, replacing the letters patent system, involving a sort of order signed by the minister, with an as of right system of incorporation makes it much easier to set up not-for-profit organizations. First, the discretionary approval process would disappear and the incorporation process would be simplified, giving corporations greater flexibility. This process would also be more efficient and less expensive, both for corporations and for the government.

Second, eliminating the obligation to have by-laws approved gives corporations the flexibility to create by-laws to meet their particular needs. It is high time the minister's discretionary authority in this area was abolished. This will increase not only the credibility of not-for-profit organizations, but public confidence in them.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out the main issues the Bloc Québécois and many representatives of not-for-profit organizations have with Bill C-4 and the Canada Corporations Act. The Canada Corporations Act currently includes a classification system for not-for-profit organizations. The bill still does not include any mechanisms to correct this situation.

For the government, the new act does not need a classification system because the framework is permissive and flexible, allowing organizations to choose how to apply many provisions.

However, according to the national charities and not-for-profit law section of the Canadian Bar Association, not including a general classification system is a major flaw in this bill. It then becomes important to specify if the not-for-profit organization is charitable, mutualist, political or even religious, because they would be different. I am only trying to highlight various distinctions, but we believe that the committee should tackle this issue.

As well, section 154 of the Canada Corporations Act currently stipulates that the federal minister may grant a charter of incorporation if the corporation thereby created pursues objects “to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like objects.”

But it appears that the proposed new legislation would not require a not-for-profit organization to include in its statutes the objects it intends to pursue, thus sidestepping the whole notion of specifying what action an organization can take in accordance with its goals.

Since we know that the federal Parliament only has jurisdiction over organizations that do not have provincial goals, this raises the following question: Why does the bill not include some provision to oversee what falls under federal jurisdiction? The Bloc Québécois feels that this question should be studied in committee.

These are legitimate issues that the Bloc Québécois is trying to defend.

Under section 92 of the Constitution, managing the social economy, volunteering and community activities falls within provincial jurisdiction. As set out in that section, all matters of a merely local or private nature fall under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

I repeat; it is important to note that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over only those organizations that do not pursue provincial objects. Section 92, subsection 11 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants the incorporation of companies with provincial objects specifically to the provinces.

Accordingly, there seems to be a serious flaw in the bill and it must be carefully examined to avoid any potential conflict between the provinces and the federal government. The bill must be amended to limit its application to not-for-profit corporations that operate in several provinces, that have offices in several provinces or whose object comes under federal jurisdiction.

Adding these limitations is not mandatory per se. Constitutionally, the federal government does not have the authority to legislate in areas of Quebec jurisdiction. However, to avoid any confusion that could arise from the new wording of the legislation, it would be wise to include provisions limiting the scope of its application.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that, for some time now, representatives of not-for-profit corporations have been calling for amendments to bring the Canada Corporations Act up to date. For reasons of transparency, efficiency and fairness, the Bloc Québécois believes that these amendments are legitimate and essential. However, certain points need to be clarified in committee.

Whether on matters of classification or the jurisdictions of each level of government, we believe that the committee must provide clear answers. The representatives of not-for-profit corporations deserve to be able to work with a Canada Corporations Act that effectively meets their needs.