Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think you're correct, sir, in observing that our interest as the Taxpayers Federation is more general than that of the other parties around the table. We take a principled stance against boutique tax credits—special writeoffs for children's hockey, political parties, oil and gas exploration, for example. If it were up to us, we would have more of an Alberta solution. We'd throw most of the Income Tax Act into the trash heap, and bang it right down as low as possible. Treat everyone equally. That's been our long-standing view.
In fact, political parties have the richest tax credit treatment. I won't take too much time to say this. I'll just say it quickly and let you know it's a scandal that political parties have far richer tax treatment on contributions than the Diabetes Association, the Heart Foundation, or the Cancer Society. It's a scandal, and it shows you that the politicians, not the charities, are running the tax system.
We believe there ought to be treatment for labour organizations analogous to charities. To pick up on what Dan Kelly of the CFIB mentioned, if Parliament wishes to extend the Rand formula.... The average donation to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was $140 last year. We had over 20,000 donations, in rough numbers, so if you wish to enrol the other 24 million Canadian tax filers into our organization and expand our revenue to $3.5 billion, a thousandfold expansion in our revenues, we could get around this whole problem of having to get people to voluntarily give us money. For $3.5 billion we might have a look at buying into the disclosure requirements that are being discussed here.
We don't believe in compulsion. We wouldn't want to force people to give us money; that's why we don't accept government funds, that's why our donations are not tax-deductible, and that's why we enjoy the freedom to let our arguments speak for themselves and to conduct our business as a voluntary organization.