Evidence of meeting #10 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.
A video is available from Parliament.
November 25th, 2013 / 8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
This is part of an ongoing process debate. But it all originates in the pre-budget consultations, which are a catch-all for any sort of policy whatsoever.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I think that if we're going to cut it out of the later budget process, we ought to be consistent along the entire pre-budget process.
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Why? You are asking Canadians for their opinions on what should be in a budget and you could use that as a sounding board to say which things are financial, which are fiscal, and which budgetary. All these things could be treated differently at different committees.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, obviously I'm not convincing you.
But I do want to go to Ms. Gauthier, very briefly.
In your opening statement you said that, based on the level of employer contributions paid in 2011, you estimated that almost 40,000 charities could benefit from the hiring credit included in this Budget Implementation Act.
Almost 90% of all charities have paid staff. But you said that when the hiring credit came out, many charities did not avail themselves of it because they did not see it as applying to them. Was that because they didn't see themselves as traditional employers, or was it something that the government did or did not do that caused charities not to avail themselves of the credit?
Vice-President, Public Policy and Community Engagement, Imagine Canada
It wasn't so much that the charities didn't avail themselves of the credit. It was that they were not aware on budget night and in the months following that it was applicable to them. The point was simply about the way we described the credit. We in fact acknowledge our mistake. We overlooked it.
In talking with officials, and I believe with our colleagues in government, they didn't promote it or market it as something that they were doing for charities.
We would welcome the opportunity, when additional initiatives that apply to all employers are put forth, to have these initiatives clearly identified as such. I think the budget document spoke about the important role that small businesses play as job creators in the Canadian economy. I would welcome the inclusion of those types of sentences for charities and non-profits.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So when you see the phrases “employers”, “small business”, “job employers”, and “job creators”, do charities consider themselves within those? Or do they need to be mentioned specifically?
Vice-President, Public Policy and Community Engagement, Imagine Canada
I think they probably need to be a little bit more specific, because the recognition here was a “small firm”. I don't know that they would see themselves as a firm, even though they would see themselves as social entrepreneurs and as operating related businesses as charities.
It's just a clarification that could really help in future.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you very much for that.
I want to thank all of you for being here, both in Ottawa and in
Quebec City. Thank you very much for your remarks and for your answers to our questions.
Thank you so much for your input into this very lively discussion this evening.
Thank you, colleagues.
The meeting is adjourned.