Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question will be to Ms. Kirk.

Ms. Kirk, as I'm sure you are well aware, the recent 2006 federal budget announced that donations to publicly listed securities to registered charities would be exempt from capital gains tax, effective immediately. Could you comment on Imagine Canada and tell us how this measure will specifically help charities and non-profit organizations?

[Teri Kirk]

Thank you for raising that. It is something our sector asked for, and we are very pleased to see the measure included in budget 2006. We have some hope and some expectation that the measure may be extended in budget 2007, so it would apply to gifts of other types of assets besides publicly traded shares and might apply to gifts to private charities as well as public charities. That's an important distinction. Private charities include 4,500 private foundations, often set up by wealthy entrepreneurs and successful families who decide they would like to give back to their community. We would like those 4,500 private charities to be eligible for those sorts of gifts as well.

That measure has been helpful, and we've seen it's already incented some very significant gifts by wealthy Canadians. We have to understand that tax measures are part of a bundle of instruments supporting this sector. Federal grants and contributions are also extremely important. Tax measures tend to result in gifts to a fairly small number of the 80,000 charities. For example, the John Howard Society in a rural community is not likely to get a significant gift of shares from a wealthy businessperson. We have to look at our rural communities. We have to look at tax measures that result in dollars going into a wider range of organizations.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you. I certainly concur that this government undertook a great first start for helping charities.

My next question will be for Mr. Williamson. It's a pleasure to have you here today speaking as an advocate for taxpayers and not here on the crutch of any actual taxpayer dollars, so your comments were refreshing.

My question to you relates to the first question asked of you. The credibility of your organization, which stands up for taxpayers, was slightly questioned when they said your comments about eliminating waste could call into question the very credibility of your mandate. I found this to be completely off base. I'd ask you, Mr. Williams, what are you hearing on the street in terms of the initiatives this government is taking to trim waste? What is the regular taxpayer telling you? Can you share those comments with us?

[John Williamson]

I'll be brief because I know time is running out.

I appreciate that. We're a tax advocacy organization, but we also do--

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order. I think he's just related to 72,000 members, so those taxpayers, not the overall.

[John Williamson]

Fair enough. I don't want to misrepresent myself. The area we spend more and more time on is that of a watchdog. While we promote certain tax reforms, the watchdog component is growing.

I'll speak on behalf of my members, but also, from what you hear on talk radio, most Canadians are oblivious to these billion-dollar cuts over two years, half a billion dollars a year. That's because the Government of Canada didn't cut services or programs that directly affect Canadians. There are groups representing literacy organizations here, but if you look at the provincial groups, most of them have stepped up and said they actually receive funding from the provinces. But the federal government is funding literacy advocacy, so this does affect people who work there, but broadly speaking across the country, I don't think there's great outrage over the billion-dollar reduction.

Let me give you another example. Mr. Brown mentioned it. The Policy Research Network--that's exactly the type of relationship that should be cut. It presses a political, left-wing agenda and it promotes national day care. You're free to go out and promote national day care that advocates that we put our kids in institutional day care, but to do so on the public dime is just wrong, particularly when it runs counter to the government's own policy. That is just a waste of tax dollars, and I think that budget was being cut by $3 million. That is a specific example of a political organization that sees itself as being independent, but is anything but.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Mr. Brown, if you don't mind, Monsieur Roy wanted to make a comment.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Storseth had a quick question he wanted--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Okay, but we are already out of time, so...

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

If the time is up, the time is up.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Yes, the time is up. A witness was asking to make a short answer, but the time is already up.

We have completed the second...

Mr. Regan, did you want to say something?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

This is a point of order. In Tuesday's meeting, I said the following to the minister.

Minister, you have said you're spending more than $80 million on a number of initiatives, but in fact this isn't just for adult literacy, as you know. What I'd like you to agree is that your officials will provide us, by tomorrow morning

--meaning yesterday morning--

with a breakdown of federal spending by your department in the area of adult literacy in 2006-07. I don't want it now; I'd like it by tomorrow morning. I don't want to take too much time right now.

I'm told by the clerk that we have not received this. It seems to me it's a very simple matter. Last night, the minister told me we'd get it when it's ready. It seems to me all we're asking for is the breakdown of what she claims she is spending on literacy--$80 million. I don't understand why this can't be provided and I would like the assurance of the parliamentary secretary that it will be provided today; and if not, why not, and when. That's the first point of order.

As for the second one, actually, Mr. Martin has one about the report on this work here. The other point is that Mr. Martin suggests we should do a report on the work we've been doing on this study on those cuts, Mr. Chairman.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Just a second, please. I have somebody else.

I will recognize Mr. Martin. Is it on the same subject?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

It's a point of order on the second thing.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

This can't be fun for the witnesses. It's not committee business.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I believe my point of order is on committee business. I was wondering if we could get some direction from the front on what we're going to do now as far as a report is concerned, so that we can deliver it back to the government on the hearings we've just had.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Should we not be dealing with this after the witnesses have been released?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, this relates to the matter we're dealing with right now in this study. It seems to me that it's part of what we've just been hearing about. It's relevant to what we've been discussing as part of the same study. It seems to me that it doesn't have to be in camera.

Besides that, it's a very simple matter. Surely the government can answer this question. If it's claiming it is spending $80 million in this area, then how? Last spring in the House of Commons, after I asked a question, the parliamentary secretary told me the government was going to be spending $38 million in the area of literacy, but now we know they've cut $17.7 million. And now they're claiming they're spending $80 million. They should give us a simple answer.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Why are going on like this during committee, Mr. Chairman?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

I'm sorry, Mr. Regan, but that was not a point of order. We cannot accept that.

I am going to recognize Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'm wondering why we are going through committee business when we have witnesses here and we're studying. No one has ever suggested that we have to have a report by the end of hearing from four or five groups of witnesses speaking. When has that been part of our committee business? Get a report while the witnesses are here? Questions that were posed to the minister? What's going on? I'm sure we have questions yet.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I have a duty to listen to members who raise a point of order and to decide whether or not it is really a point of order.

I am going to give the floor to Mr. Lessard, because it would seem that he, too, has a point of order. I will determine whether it is actually a point of order, and then I will tell you how we will proceed.

Mr. Lessard, if you have a point of order, please proceed.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is sort of a point of order. What my colleague, Mr. Regan, just said makes sense. The witnesses were not told which programs would be specifically targeted through the budget cuts and wanted to know whether we knew. The fact is that we don't know anything more than they do.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am not challenging your ruling; it is a good ruling. Even though I had other questions on the main areas affected by the budget cuts, which would have given us an opportunity to gather additional information, we should now be thanking the people who appeared as witnesses today. The Committee does have some business to attend to, and the meeting is scheduled to end at 1 p.m.