Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Let me thank the members of the committee for their patience, their attention, and their conscientiousness in this hearing. I'm delighted to appear before you.
Let me indicate that I am a research associate at the Carleton Centre for Community Innovation, but I don't speak for the centre. I'm also on faculty at the School of Public Policy and Administration, but as well I don't speak for the school. What I do speak for is someone who, for the past few years, has looked at the international treatment of charitable contributions, primarily among OECD countries but also including some developing countries. So my interests are how Canada situates itself among other countries that similarly provide forms of tax incentives for charitable contributions.
Let me say, first of all, although I might change the presentation of my brief that I prepared six months ago, the content really represents my ideas, and those ideas still are based on the sense that the Government of Canada has the responsibility to allocate tax revenues to purposes that best serve the needs of its citizens. This responsibility extends to the revenues that the government foregoes in providing tax incentives, whether by credits or deductions on charitable contributions.
Now, the organizations that receive those contributions are diverse in terms of the purposes they pursue, the activities they perform, and the populations they serve. The government should consider this diversity when deciding where its foregone tax dollars should go. And it should differentiate the tax incentives to provide a higher credit or deduction for contributions to organizations that attend to the most pressing needs. Indeed, as I suggest, different countries provide examples of how this could be done.
My brief summarizes an example of such an initiative. I call it a “charity+” program, that would provide a higher credit, say, 40%, for a capped quantity of contributions to organizations that address the basic needs—housing, food, and health—of persons in low income. This would be similar to what exists in France. It would be similar to what a number of American states have introduced—Arizona, Michigan. It would parallel as well certain aspects of the way Portugal will encourage charitable contributions. So there are a range of countries that provide precedence for this.
But such a program, I suggest, could enable the government to direct more of its foregone revenues to an area of ongoing human, social, and economic need. I suggest it would surpass a stretch tax credit in achieving the very goals for which the latter has been promoted, and I itemize those on the last page of my brief.
Although my comments are not directed to criticize the stretch tax credit but rather to endorse the notion of a differentiation of the charitable sector, nevertheless, I think to support the stretch tax credit would be a missed opportunity if the goal is to engage Canadians and create an ongoing incentive to affiliate with the charitable sector.
Thank you.