Finance Committee on Nov. 18th, 2014

[Michèle Biss]

Absolutely, and it's important to remember that it's not just children; it's children who have likely also experienced some form of persecution.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, you have a short time.

Colleagues, there are 30-minute bells now. I'm going to finish Mr. Brison's round. I suggest we finish with Mr. Allen for five minutes, and then we'll go to vote. Is that acceptable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, for a brief question.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

You were asked a question earlier by Mr. Van Kesteren about specific measures. Would increasing the working income tax benefit, and potentially the child tax benefit as well, both of which are very progressive measures, make a difference in moving the needle in terms of poverty?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A brief response, please.

[Michèle Biss]

We believe in this idea that we need a comprehensive federal anti-poverty plan, and yes, those certainly might be two elements that are part of an overall plan that addresses the systemic causes of poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

We'll go to Mr. Allen, please.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Biss, I want to pick up on that line of questioning just for a second. As Mr. Keddy pointed out, the legislation does not “take away”, and as you indicated in your statement before, the provinces have said they're not asking for that, and some in the opposition have said that. So in reality then, chances are the provinces are not going to do anything to enact.... This legislation gives them the flexibility to do so. At the end of the day, if they've chosen not to go down that road, there will be no impact.

[Michèle Biss]

It is certainly possible that the provinces might say they'll have zero minimum residency requirement. That is correct. However, what this is fundamentally about is a key national standard that upholds the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all people have access to basic needs and fulfills its human rights responsibilities. All levels of government are responsible for the human rights of the people in Canada.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'm not going to dispute that, but at the same time, the social assistance is still going to be there.

[Michèle Biss]

This bill isn't about the administration of social assistance, which indisputably, of course, provinces do have jurisdiction over. This is about a national standard that ensures that social assistance is distributed equitably and that all people have access to those basic needs.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I dispute that, but anyway....

I'll go to the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. It's interesting to look at some of the lotteries we see coming up in local areas. I see a lot of my volunteer firefighters now starting some of these lotteries. It's a tremendous amount of money that they're able to raise, and many people participate.

With respect to that, Mr. McAllister, your analogy of reaching into the drum was also a very good one, because we can imagine how long it would take—about 15 days—and how many people. The chair also talked about the adoption of ICT.

What do you anticipate with this legislative change over the coming years in terms of furthering the reach you're able to get in the ability to raise more money, and with that in mind, what do you anticipate would be some of the risks from controls, because you're going from one environment to another for doing this?

What kinds of control mechanisms do you have in place? Are you able to leverage other organizations for those controls?

[Janice Gray]

Tom, I'll do the controls if you want, because that's my day-to-day business.

I'm looking at things that would possibly engage our provincial regulators to have us work with the provincial lotteries, so controls that have already been approved by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, AGCO, for use by provincial lotteries could then be leveraged for use by charitable lotteries. That might be one way. We could take the approach that the controls are in place and have been approved, the software and everything has been approved for use provincially, and we'll just go along for the ride. We can pay a fee to use the software and the processes. I think that's the best way to deal with the control issue.

We're not looking to open up a wild west of crazy computer lotteries. We just want to send an e-ticket to somebody who purchased a lottery. There's a big range of where that can go. At the most fundamental, we're just looking to do what everybody does to conduct business today.

[Tom McAllister]

I would agree with Janice. We're just piggybacking on processes that have been put in place and have been there for decades at the provincial level.

In terms of your question on what the savings could be on an annualized basis, we estimate, probably conservatively, that this would save the charitable sector in Canada somewhere in the range of $2.9 million a year, and quite frankly, it could be more than that.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

The savings is one thing, and that's great, but the ability to run these more efficiently and effectively.... The fundraising reach, this must really anticipate to increase that in the future years. Does it?

[Janice Gray]

It does for me, and that's why I made a point about acquiring new, younger consumers. It's not a secret that the charitable lottery sector is basically funded by elderly people. So the less we're in the new world of modern technology, the less likely we are to get supporters to come on board.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for being with us here this morning and contributing to a very good policy discussion on this bill and the important deliberations here.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.