Finance Committee on May 5th, 2020

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those were very interesting presentations from all of you.

Mr. Fogel, I'd like to start with you. I want to thank you for your excellent presentation. I think it's important to understand that the charitable sector, like many others, clearly is in deep trouble, but it's not just the charities. At the end of the day, it boils down to the individuals who are served by the charities and the effect this will have on them and their families. It's critically important that this sector get assistance.

I think government has a very important role to play in that, but we know that government can't do everything in a crisis of this magnitude, which is why I really like the suggestion of increasing the tax credit on charitable giving. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that a bit and if you have any thoughts about where that might go. I know that with political donations, for example, you get a 75% tax credit on the first $400. Could you comment on that first?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I think this flows from a principle that I tried to articulate in my brief presentation, and that is that I find particularly attractive the idea of government partnering with the private sector and really serving as an enabler for the engagement of individuals and Canadians across the country to give expression to their desire to make a contribution.

The idea of boosting the level of tax credit that a person would benefit from when they file their returns—hopefully, we'll play catch-up on the H&R Block statistic of five million behind—serves as an incentive for individuals to say, “Yes, I will make that contribution. I will get some recognition for it and it's a way for me to participate in helping other Canadians.”

I think what was really important about the preface of your question was the principle that you're not just looking for a handout for a particular sector. It's not that I'm being dismissive or diminishing the importance of providing those kinds of support, but there's the double impact on those who are in the sector and on those to whom they're delivering services. I think this is simply one way for us to be able to help facilitate some of that support.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

Along that line of reasoning, there's another idea that I've been considering. I have had some discussions with stakeholders around the question of foundations. Foundations currently have assets across the country in excess of about $80 billion. The government, through the Income Tax Act, regulates what the disbursement quota is for foundations. For example, currently it's 3.5% of their assets. Back in 2004, it was 4.5%. It got reduced at that time.

I'm just wondering what you think of this idea. I know that foundations are trying to step up, but government does have the ability to, on a temporary basis, help Canadians and charities get through this crisis and not just rely on government, in accordance with the line of reasoning we've been hearing throughout this conversation for the most part.

What about the idea of asking foundations to do a little more, to do perhaps a short-term increase in the disbursement quota? One per cent on $80 billion would be about $800 million that could go into the economy and wouldn't cost the government anything. I'm just wondering what you might think of a concept like that.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I think it's consistent with the overall approach of creating a platform that incentivizes Canadians to participate more generally, but anecdotally I will tell you—and maybe I'm negotiating against myself here—that to the extent that I've had discussions with those who are affiliated with foundations, they have stepped up significantly in terms of providing assistance. I know that in the Jewish community experience, foundations, whether they're community foundations or institutions like the Azrieli Foundation, have gone well beyond the minimum disbursement requirements that they operate with in order to provide emergency relief.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I recognize that as well.

I would be remiss if I didn't ask you while you were here about anti-Semitism. I know it's not about the charitable sector directly, but the rise in anti-Semitism is a very serious problem. Recently Tel Aviv University released a report that I was alarmed to see that linked part of the spike in anti-Semitism to COVID, harbouring back to the old anti-Semitic tropes of blood libel and those types of things.

From that perspective, what would your organization recommend for dealing with things like online hate and offline violence?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I think some of the usual suspects have turned back to those historical tropes about Jews, but we should also note that Chinese people, and Asians generally, have been the target of similar attacks.

Your reference to online hate really represents a ripe opportunity for us to exponentially increase our action against it. Everybody has heard about Zoom bombing. That's just one manifestation of using technology to attack, disrupt, harass or otherwise undermine a sense of community and society. I know that increasingly, and largely as a result of the work you've done in the studies you undertook in the last Parliament about online hate and your determination to go forward with that, a lot of these social media companies—giants, really—in the sector have been stepping up to partner with community organizations to get a handle on it and develop strategies to combat it. We cannot relent on that.

There's a need for us to increase our vigilance and get measures with teeth so that there are disincentives for people to flirt with online hate. We have to have a level of vigilance that ensures it doesn't become the repository or the seedbed for new levels of—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Fogel. I'm getting the signal from the chair.

I don't mean to interrupt. Perhaps we'll be able to circle back later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both. It was important information, but I don't want to run out of time.

We'll now turn to Ms. Koutrakis, and then to Mr. Ste-Marie.

Annie.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for appearing before the finance committee this afternoon and for your very thoughtful and informative testimony.

I will ask my first question to Ms. Seale of the Canadian Cancer Society.

Ms. Seale, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, you endorsed a letter from Imagine Canada calling for the establishment of an $8-billion emergency stabilization fund for the charitable and non-profit sector. Can you please outline some areas this funding would address, specific to areas that are not covered by the $350-million emergency community support fund?

[Andrea Seale]

Sure.

The details of the emergency support fund haven't been fully released yet, so it is hard to comment on how exactly it will address the needs of the sector. I know for health charities like ours, the impacts we feel are across all parts of what we do. For example, we're the largest investor in cancer research after the federal government, and as we have to cut research budgets, we'll be granting less to Canada's research community at universities and hospitals where they're doing cancer research that is saving lives and improving survival rates.

In addition to research, we'll be cutting back on support services that very often address the needs of the most vulnerable Canadians, such as, for example, people who have difficulty accessing their treatments because they live in remote communities or have economic disadvantages. They look to non-profit organizations to help them access the basic health care that we all need. We'll also be reducing our advocacy work. We do a lot of work in partnership with government on many things—currently, e-cigarettes, vaping and tobacco—that ultimately protect the health of Canadians and have a very wide-ranging impact on people's health and, ultimately, on the strain to our health care system.

All of those are examples for the Canadian Cancer Society, but the full spectrum of what charitable organizations contribute is almost too great to describe, as is the impact we all have. We all benefit from the charitable sector in different ways in our lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I see Mr. Roth shaking his head. I should have said that if anybody else wants to come in and just add a quick supplementary, go ahead.

I expect you're in full agreement, Doug.

[Doug Roth]

Absolutely.

While we commend the programs that have been announced today, to Andrea's point regarding the breadth and depth of programs, at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada we have a lot of similarities with the Canadian Cancer Society, being that we're the second-largest fundraiser after the government in heart disease and stroke, and we have a plethora of public education and awareness programs. We're seeing cutbacks across the board that we had never dreamed of.

They're going to have impacts both today and, as Andrea and I said, they are going to be equally scary as we look to the months and years ahead, and we look out to the horizon at the cascading impacts of reduced investments for a prolonged period of time. Whether it's interrupting research or interrupting the level of care, we're starting to get very worried about what's on the horizon.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

I'm going to turn to the National Airlines Council of Canada.

Mr. McNaney, you have stated that other countries have provided direct financial aid to their own airlines, which is important to ensure their ability to survive and recover. What would a direct financial support program for your members look like, and how could it be structured while maintaining your members' jobs, similar to what the CEWS is doing now?

[Mike McNaney]

Thank you for the question. It's a good question.

In terms of the tools the federal government has at its disposal, we are not proposing one set approach to how the government deals with this. At a top level, basically we have two issues, as I said in my opening comments. We would like the government to come forth with the approach it plans to take. It has referenced it a few times now in public over the past month.

Related to that, there is one big issue. In my opening comments, I referred to the 90% of capacity out of the market, and we are looking at liquidity challenges across the sector. We are asking the government that in its approach, it come forth with means by which we can address this and provide some form of cash bridge for companies to utilize. Related to that, we are hoping it will be an approach that companies at different stages with different challenges will be able to utilize. We're not trying to push the government to a one-size-fits-all approach. They have a variety of tools they can use to ultimately stabilize the sector so that we can actually start to plan for the activities we're going to have to undertake to drive the economic recovery.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Be very quick, Annie.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I have a very quick question for Mr. Fogel.

As this pandemic has shown us, seniors are by far the most vulnerable group that has been impacted by COVID. Although the federal government has already taken measures to support Canadian seniors, given your current reality, what else would you say the Government of Canada can do to further support our seniors? What are you hearing out there? What are the seniors really looking for?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I think a lot of attention has been directed toward seniors' residences and institutions for, obviously, very good and compelling reasons, but it may come a bit at the expense of seniors who are experiencing isolation and vulnerability in their own homes. They're now removed from many of the supports they typically have, including children, who have a more difficult challenge reaching out to them and providing those kinds of normal supports that they would.

The sense of vulnerability that seniors are feeling, as well as the reduced care that they're getting—whether it's personal care or medical care, access to the typical needs of life, shopping and so forth—has increased the level of stress significantly, certainly within our community, and I think it's replicated in every community in Canada. That has had consequences as well. We have seen a surge in the need for psychological counselling. There are many groups within the community—and, again, I know this is echoed in so many different places across the country—that provide outreach programs to seniors, volunteer-driven telephoning and visitation of some sort or another. All of these things have to come into play.

Sometimes I think it's important for us to recall that it's not just about money. It's about creating platforms and vehicles for people to do what they're motivated to do while they don't necessarily know how to navigate towards doing it. Even for some of the educational programs, the instructional things, the direction that would be provided within faith-based and religious communities, at the municipal level or even at the provincial or federal level, the need to help Canadians understand where they can play a role and make a contribution is also an important consideration in the overall strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fogel, and thank you, Annie.

We'll turn to Mr. Ste-Marie and then go to Mr. Julian.

Gabriel.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to acknowledge all of the participants and thank them for being here. Their testimony has been very informative.

My first question is for Mr. McNaney, from the National Airlines Council of Canada.

My colleague Ms. Koutrakis already asked what would have been my first question, which was what kind of direct plan you envision. You've already responded and I thank you for that.

The United States announced a $25-billion U.S. plan for airlines. France has allocated $7 billion to Air France. Are you expecting this type of direct plan, in proportion to your members' sales?

[Mike McNaney]

In terms of what we would expect, I must say that it's very hard for me to answer the question. What has been transpiring over the past several weeks is that carriers have been making the government aware of the challenges they are facing. That information has been presented and the government is taking a look at that information. We are now waiting to see what their response will be.

I can't speculate on what approach the government might ultimately take. You were referencing a number of examples in other jurisdictions of how they have approached the issue. I am assuming that the government is looking at how all these countries, our trading partners, have reacted. Different countries have taken different approaches, whether through some form of liquidity, whether through loans or some form of grants, or whether through lowering taxes and fees in the industry as a means to generate more flying and support as we try to get out of the crisis.

I was also thinking that an announcement was coming at any point over the past three weeks, so I'm afraid my predictions as to where this goes are not the best. We are certainly hoping that the government recognizes the severity of the crisis the industry is facing and will bring forth a package that's commensurate with that crisis.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay.

In the same vein, when we look at what's being done in the United States and Europe in general, direct assistance programs come with conditions. For example, the United States is requiring that airlines refund passengers whose flights were cancelled as a result of COVID-19. France is requiring that airlines purchase new, more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Would your members agree to a potential assistance plan with conditions? For example, I'm suggesting that aircraft maintenance would have to be done in Canada. Construction in the aerospace industry has stopped. Thousands of people are unemployed. It would be good if your industry could at least hire these employees to maintain the aircraft. Another environmental condition could require that airlines purchase more fuel-efficient aircraft.

If these conditions were attached to the direct assistance program for your sector, would you be prepared to accept them?

[Mike McNaney]

You did a good job there of covering off the variety of approaches that are occurring. I am very hesitant to guess what the government's approach will be, and therefore, what terms and conditions may be attached to it. We simply do not know what that approach will be, the scope and scale of that approach.

On the conditions, I would simply say that I'm just not in a position to speculate which way the government may or may not move. Overall, what a number of those conditions were talking about, what's behind them, is absolutely taking every measure possible to ensure that as we are ramping this industry back up, every measure is being taken to bring the 60,000 direct employees across the airlines back to work and to expand operations. That is absolutely the basis of the engagement with the government.

At the end of the day, this is about getting the industry back, as safely and as operationally as we can, to where we were before the pandemic started and, by definition then, absolutely support as much economic growth and development as we possibly can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll have to go on to Mr. Julian, and then we'll start the next round with Mr. Cooper and Mr. McLeod.

Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all our witnesses for being here today. We hope your families are safe and healthy.

I'm very pleased to see you here today, National Chief Bertrand. You've been long overdue in coming here. We have had indigenous leaders come forward to the finance committee, and they've also testified at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, concerned about the lack of supports for indigenous communities. Certainly we should have learned the lessons from the past, when indigenous communities received little more than body bags to deal with pandemics. We're facing a similar situation here.

You pointed out that, on average, indigenous peoples living in urban areas will have about 15 dollars' worth of funding. That contrasts vividly and starkly with the supports that have been given in liquidity for some of the country's most profitable and biggest banks, about $20 billion on average.

What is the price of our not providing supports for indigenous peoples who live in urban areas across the country? What should the government be doing to provide support for indigenous people living in those urban areas?