Finance Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012

[Ian Bird]

I think there's an interesting discussion that's going on right now. In fact, Allan Gregg spoke about this at the national summit hosted by a number of us. The point was made that in the past, most public engagement efforts have focused on attitude, awareness, or understanding.

Frankly, I think there's quite a high degree of awareness about the benefits of giving. Allan Gregg made the argument that it's about shifting to strategies organized around behaviour, and in fact our message should be zeroing in on the behavioural side.

This is something economists have been grappling with ever since the downturn in 2008. People were aware of the risks, but it was behavioural economists who understood the kinds of changes that were coming. They were the ones who predicted the downturn. I think if the government were to pursue an advertising effort and promotion of this and get behind the tax incentives you recommend, it should be one that really zeroes in on the behaviour, and through that behaviour, then, the impact this could have in our communities, in our environment, and in the way we participate in civic life.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Hutchinson, and then Mr. Robinson.

[Don Hutchinson]

I've answered part of the question previously, so I'll add some content. The importance of the charitable sector to the Canadian economy is significant. I don't think most Canadians are aware of that. Promoting the integration between the several sectors of our economy is key. People hear about corporations and the good and bad they do. They hear about government. Yes, government does good, and government does bad as well. They rarely hear, for example, that a number of charitable organizations bid on government contracts. The lowest bidder takes the contract, and the charities seem to stretch the government's dollars. When the government offers the same service, it costs two, three, sometimes four times as much money. I'm not suggesting the government advertise its inefficiencies, but I would suggest that promoting the idea that charities are engaging with the world and the government is engaging with charities, so what are you doing, would be an incredible thing.

The Canadian Christian Relief and Development Association sent over $537 million out of the country in 2010. Of that total, less than 6%—$32 million—came from CIDA. So people are engaging. I would dare say that this $32 million was better spent than if the government had invested $32 million in having a bureaucratic civil service organization do the same work.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There's about a minute left.

Mr. Robinson, you wanted to comment.

[Peter Robinson]

Yes, just to pick up on this—because I actually don't believe a campaign like that would have the biggest impact—I'd like to focus back on something Mr. Jean said. In terms of how the CRA and the government look at the financial acumen and performance of organizations, they tend to put a high value on the programs that are delivered and lower values on administration and development costs. If you wanted to really develop a culture of giving, you would allow charities to actually do much more to inculcate that culture by going out and connecting, developing deeper relationships, making a longer-term connection with the individuals who are either donating now or could possibly donate. But all of our organizations tend to want to make sure that the bulk of our funding goes to programs, simply because those are kinds of guidelines we're given.

In my mind, if the federal government were going to do anything to look at increasing that culture, it would be to look at how we can ensure that organizations can do more outreach to do that themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have two more members, so if I could ask members to have short rounds, it would be helpful.

Mr. Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I have just one question, and then Mr. Giguère has one.

This question is to Mr. Robinson. It's easy for us to see that some organizations are working to help people in poverty. In terms of your situation, the government has been attacking environmentalists; environmentalists have been under watch.

Can you tell us, in terms of education, what can you do and how can you work with the government? How can you add in terms of where we move forward as a society?

[Peter Robinson]

The question goes to my opening comments, which were that I believe the government has a role to acknowledge that charities play a significant role in policy development in this country. There's a long history of doing it, no matter what the sector. It's difficult. I know there's been some pressure on the environmental sector lately, and in effect it diminishes the fact that a lot of the work that environmental organizations and charities are doing is actually to promote government policy and strengthen it in a way that impacts on all Canadians equally.

I would just hope that in the debate on the single issue that seems to be dominating the media these days we don't lose sight of the fact that all charities, environmental organizations included, are actually working toward the civic good of this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. Giguère, you can ask a very quick question.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I will try to be very quick. You know how difficult that is in my case.

What would be the reaction in the charitable donation community if one group in particular, specifically food banks and shelters, were singled out and donors of food could claim the expense as a deduction, something that is not the case at the moment? What would be the reaction if food banks were allowed to take a donation of real estate? This would apply only to shelters and food banks. What would happen if donations of equipment were allowed, such as tables, vehicles, gasoline? Fourth, what would be the reaction if those providing space at no cost were allowed a reimbursable tax credit? At the moment, religious communities quite often provide organizations of that kind with space.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Van Pelt.

[Michael Van Pelt]

I guess the concern would be what institution would make those judgment calls? I'm imagining in this case you would think it would be the Government of Canada. That would be a fearful thing to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Anyone further?

Mr. MacDonald.

[Bruce MacDonald]

I think the reaction would be that it wouldn't be overly popular to suggest that there's one element of the voluntary sector that is more important than others. If you just want an honest, gut feel, I think there would be a lot of organizations who would say, we understand and recognize the need for that service, but I'm not sure there's anyone, really.... And it comes back to who gets to say that service is more important or will do better than another service.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Hutchinson, you wanted to comment.

[Don Hutchinson]

I have lived and worked in communities across the country where the religious community has provided space, has started the food banks, and has turned them over to the community when it's appropriate, and those kinds of things. I would be very concerned about favouring one sector over another, but promoting greater cooperation between the sectors might be advantageous.

I also don't want us to lose sight of the fact that most people give either because their convictions have created a planned form of giving, a certain amount of their income, or they're giving out of their excess, the extra they have. That brings us back around to the idea that there are a lot of single-income families out there who would give more if they had more disposable income.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Bird, very briefly, please.

[Ian Bird]

You might want to check in with Santropol Roulant in Montreal, or with The Stop in Toronto. These are two food security-based and -centred organizations that have spun off a series of other things of importance to their community: youth employment, seniors' care, social enterprise, youth engagement activities. It's that connectivity of those issues that's important at the community level, and I think you would benefit from their views.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Before I go to Ms. Glover, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Very quickly, Mr. Chair, we've heard three times from three different witnesses about cooperation between the charities and how it could encourage giving and also work to our advantage. I'm just wondering if any of the witnesses can table that to the committee at a later date.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We can certainly have them table that.

Thank you. Merci.

We'll go to Ms. Glover for a brief round, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I begin, I want to say to you that I'm very disappointed in the comments made by Mr. Mai. In fact, the government members have been very respectful of these witnesses today. I don't recall any of them ever attacking any of the environmentalists who might be here. I resent that, and I'm going to stand up for these members, who care very much about this study on charities.

Nevertheless, having said that, may I ask you to do some homework for me. I'm not a teacher, but I really want your advice on this.

Mr. Paul Reed, who is a professor from Carleton University, was here. I'm going to read to you a segment of what was in his report. Again, it's on bequests, but there are suggestions in here that we never seem to get to, and I would be really interested in hearing from you about these suggestions. As Mr. Van Pelt said, this demographic change of baby boomers is something we're looking at.

Here's what he says:

Financial incentives may be worth considering for charitable donations that take the form of bequests. As baby boomers move into retirement and approach old age, Canada is on the verge of a period of historically unprecedented numbers of estates containing significant value.

Then he goes on to say:

There may well be potential for a graduated tax credit regime that would facilitate the making of bequests, which entail capital gains to charitable organizations.

If you have a suggestion on how we might make that happen, great.

He also suggests:

A further possibility that would have much the same effect as a tax credit scheme and would cost the public treasury no more than a tax credit approach would be a partial “matching contribution” approach, where for example, a modest percentage (say, 10 or 15%) of funds in a bequest assigned to a charitable organization would be matched by the Government of Canada.

So there are two suggestions he makes, and I'm very interested in hearing from you, following this, if you can send it to us, if you think this might have an impact on what we're trying to accomplish. And because we never get to it, I appreciate that you allowed me to read that out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Does anyone want to comment briefly on that?

Mr. Van Pelt.

[Michael Van Pelt]

Thank you for that.

Paul Reed worked with Cardus on our culture of generosity study, which you may have seen, and we are about to release a study with Paul on planned giving and the nature of planned giving, and we'll tackle some of those issues. I look forward to submitting that when it's published.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

I just want to clarify, as the chair, because there have been some issues raised. I did ask CRA very directly this question and they gave me a very direct answer. I asked if there was any political direction given to them whatsoever in terms of who they audit or do not audit at CRA. CRA said, no, there's not; there's none whatsoever.

Mr. Hutchinson, you spoke to this earlier, just in terms of the issue, but if there's any sense from any of you that there is political direction given to CRA because of any of your public advocacy, please let this committee know, because that is what CRA has told us categorically. If any of you have anything to refute what CRA is telling us, please let us know. You can state it now or you can send it to me, as the chair, later on, but that's what CRA was very clear about with us on January 31, before this committee. I did want to point that out and clarify that.

I do want to thank you very much for all of your work, as members have said.

Monsieur Mai, on a point of order.