Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
It's very hard to fathom how a party could advocate for higher job-killing taxes and seem to think it would be good for the Canadian economy. Does that make any sense to you?
8:25 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Legislative Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
It doesn't. As a strictly non-partisan organization we call them as we see them. Regardless of what government or political party intends to increase taxation, we take it very seriously and raise concerns in the exact same way.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Lauzière, you mentioned that the government, at present.... In the words it uses,
I'm going to read it from the CBC website to put it on record:
Some groups with charitable status have been going well beyond the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) guidelines for what is acceptable practice as a charitable agency. And there has also been concern that some Canadian charitable agencies have been used to launder off-shore foreign funds....
That was said by Minister Kent.
Is this the kind of language that attacks or casts stones at charitable organizations and creates an atmosphere of insecurity?
8:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada
Yes, really, that is our greatest concern. In our opinion, the system is working, and the 10% is working. There are all sorts of transparencies. These charities are among the most regulated in the country, and it is working. There is very little foreign money coming in. Although the amounts are large, it is minor.
And then, as has been said, the Canada Revenue Agency does its job. When the organizations go too far, then they are deregulated. So that is of less concern to us; we think it is working.
What we are very worried about is the language used at this point by some people to talk about the work done by charities, and that is really making us uneasy. Obviously, what is happening is that charities are increasingly saying to themselves that maybe they will not take any part in developing public policy. And if that happened, it would be disastrous.
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
When we talk about charities, whether it be for the environment or the war on poverty and so on, certainly we have to make policies. And if they follow the 10% rules, as they ordinarily do, they are making progress for society.
What concerns me in this bill, however, is that it gives the Minister of National Revenue the power to suspend the privilege of issuing tax receipts if an organization devotes too high a proportion of its resources to political activities. In addition, now it says that there will be a "reasonableness" component when it comes to what can be considered a "political activity".
So giving tax receipts is being politicized. We think this is a concern, particularly since you have said that in spite of the rules, charities are somewhat concerned.
I may come back to this if I have any time left.
Mr. Howlett, do you understand that the government is now investing $8 million to attack charitable organizations or make sure they follow the 10% rule, and cutting $250 million in CRA instead of investing in CRA so they can get the money? You mentioned tax havens and tax evasion. Now we're taking resources away from CRA instead of giving them resources so that we can get more from people who are not paying their fair share of tax.
Is that a fair assessment?
8:30 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Yes. I would argue that there are very few charities that are actually engaging in political advocacy and that it's really not a problem. In fact, the big problem is that not enough are actually taking the responsibility seriously. CRA funds would be far better spent going after abusive tax havens. There is an estimate that up to $80 billion of revenue is lost in Canada because of tax havens and tax evasion. It would be far better to increase enforcement efforts in that regard. That would serve the public good much better.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
All of us also saw the last Auditor General's report saying that CRA doesn't have enough resources to go after non-filers. So that is a big issue.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
On that front, instead of using that $8 million for going after charities, what would you do with it?
8:30 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadians for Tax Fairness
For every dollar spent, increasing enforcement and going after tax evasion would generate at least $5 or $10 of increased revenue. That would be a far better way to spend the money.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Rutter, you mentioned that there were some cuts regarding R and D for agriculture. Can you expand more on those cuts?
8:30 p.m.
Grain Growers of Canada
Yes, it was fairly broad across the department, but the ones that we were concerned about were more on the research side. Some of the administrative stuff was fine, but the cuts to research, front-line research, were of most concern to us.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to give the bulk of my time to Mr. Jean.
Before I do that, though, I want to comment on one issue that the Grain Growers of Canada brought up, and that's the rail service, and the impact of the rail strike going on here across Canada.
I know my constituents are calling me and they are really concerned, but not only my constituents. We're actually seeing CP employees calling in and expressing concern. It looks to me that it may not even be the union at fault in this case. It may be management. But I think it's very important, though, when I look at my constituents, and what their needs are.
Mr. Jean, you had a great line of questioning. I think I'd like you to continue along that line because I have many constituents who work in your backyard.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Unfortunately, most of them are going back to Saskatchewan, so....
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you very much.
Ms. Krause, I was reading an article the other day. It indicated that there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 million that has gone from U.S. Trust to first nations along the B.C. coast. Is that correct?
8:30 p.m.
As an Individual
The majority of the money has gone to the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation . For example, the largest grant was for $27.3 million, and the stated purpose of that was for environmental and conservation planning initiatives.
My research was once misquoted in the Winnipeg Free Press, and I forced a correction of that. I have been misquoted as saying that $27.3 million was to oppose Enbridge, but I have never said that.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That's not really my question. My question is zeroed in on this.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into British Columbia, and primarily to oppose the gateway, or to—in my opinion—fund research and development and fund marine conservation to oppose the pipeline, in my mind, based upon what I read.
But how much money from the foundations has gone to oppose the Keystone pipeline? It is obviously going through much more densely populated areas and going directly to the United States.
It seems a dichotomy because either way it's going to produce oil out of the oil sands. One pipeline goes down to American refineries and the other oil pipeline goes to the west coast of Canada.
There seems to be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars set forward to oppose the Northern Gateway, but none are going to oppose the Keystone pipeline. The only difference between the two—because both are going to develop the oil sands—is that one goes to the United States and one doesn't.
