FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 24, 2002

¹

1530

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Ms. Laurie Rektor (Financial/Operations Manager for the Voluntary Sector Initiative Secretariat, Voluntary Sector Forum)

The Chair

Ms. Shauna Sylvester (Member, Voluntary Sector Forum)

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Moore (Director, Consumer and Government Relations, Canadian National Institute for the Blind)

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC)

Ms. Cathy Moore

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Moore

The Chair

Ms. Hilary Pearson (President and CEO, Philanthropic Foundations Canada)

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams (National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts)

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association)

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Monica Patten (President and CEO, Community Foundations of Canada)

º

1620

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Monica Patten

º

1630

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Cathy Moore

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

º

1635

Ms. Cathy Moore

Ms. Fran Cutler (National Chair, Canadian National Institute for the Blind)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Ms. Megan Williams

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

º

1640

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Megan Williams

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Hilary Pearson

º

1645

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Cathy Moore

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

Ms. Monica Patten

Mr. Scott Brison

º

1650

The Chair

Ms. Monica Patten

Mr. Scott Brison

Ms. Monica Patten

The Chair

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

º

1655

Ms. Monica Patten

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Ms. Cathy Moore

»

1700

Ms. Sophia Leung

Ms. Monica Patten

»

1705

Ms. Sophia Leung

Ms. Monica Patten

Ms. Sophia Leung

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Shauna Sylvester

Ms. Monica Patten

»

1710

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Don Butcher

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Don Butcher

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien (Member, Canadian Library Association)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

»

1715

Ms. Hilary Pearson

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Hilary Pearson

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Mr. Don Butcher

Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Mr. Don Butcher

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

Ms. Fran Cutler

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

»

1720

Ms. Philippa Borgal (Associate Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 006

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 24, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone.

    Today, we'll continue with the order of the day, which is pre-budget discussions, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1). We'll go until 5:30 p.m.

    We have a number of witnesses, and the first one is Laurie Rektor, from the Voluntary Sector Forum.

    From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we have Cathy Moore. Cathy is the national coordinator of career development and employment services, and she has Fran Cutler, the national chair, with her. We welcome them both.

    From Philanthropic Foundations Canada, we have Hilary Pearson, the president and CEO.

    From Community Foundations of Canada, we have Monica Patten, president and CEO.

    From the Canadian Conference of the Arts, we have Philippa Borgal, the associate director, and Megan Williams, the national director.

    From the Canadian Library Association, fresh on the job—I think it has been three days—we have Mr. Don Butcher, who is the executive director, and Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien. Is she Irish?

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: She is the communications director of the association's Canadian national site licensing project.

    With the Voluntary Sector Forum, do you have someone else here?

    Ms. Laurie Rektor (Financial/Operations Manager for the Voluntary Sector Initiative Secretariat, Voluntary Sector Forum): Yes, we do. We have Shauna Sylvester, who is a member of the forum, and she will do our presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to ask you all to speak about your briefs or speaking notes, but the committee does have copies of everyone's briefs. They've been translated if you've submitted them ahead of time. We very much appreciate it if you've done that for us. It helps us to do our job more efficiently, and I hope gives us some time to question you.

    Ms. Rektor, we're going to start with you. If you would, please go with a seven- to eight-minute presentation. If you watch me, I'll give you a signal to give you some help at seven minutes, thirty seconds, and ask you to wrap from there.

    Thank you, and go ahead.

[Translation]

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester (Member, Voluntary Sector Forum): Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Shauna Sylvester. I am from Vancouver and I am a member of the Voluntary Sector Forum. You may be more familiar with its predecessor, the Voluntary Sector Steering Group. The Voluntary Sector Forum is the largest umbrella group of volunteer organizations in Canada, whose mission is to work for the sector. The Forum is happy to have this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance in order to raise certain issues that are of the utmost importance for the sector.

[English]

     The voluntary sector refers to all of those groups and organizations that are neither public nor private. It is sometimes referred to as the third sector, the community-based sector, non-governmental organizations, or civil society. It includes approximately 180,000 incorporated, non-profit organizations, of which half are registered charities in Canada. It includes the organizations through which citizens are involved and engaged in improving life in their communities and around the world, whether through services, recreation, culture, religion, raising money to fight disease or strengthen education, or speaking out on issues of common concern.

    The voluntary sector is often seen as a sector of volunteers. Volunteer effort is critically important to the sector, but the sector also employs 1.3 million Canadians and constitutes an economy larger than most provinces in this country.

    Just over two years ago, the government launched the voluntary sector initiative, a joint initiative with the voluntary sector. An investment of $95 million was allocated over five years to improve the relationship between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector; to make improvements to the regulatory and legal framework in which the sector operates; and to strengthen the capacity of organizations in the sector to continue their very important work. At the end of the two years, the intense phase of this initiative is finished and the follow-up phase has begun.

    The Voluntary Sector Forum, of which I am a member—and there are two other members here: Monica Patten and Megan Williams—has been charged by the sector with making sure that the good work of the first phase is maintained and that other critical issues are addressed. It is these areas in which we are making our recommendations to you today. I'm going to address three main areas, the first of which is sustaining results.

    As the voluntary sector initiative winds down, both government and the sector need to ensure that momentum on critical issues is sustained. This can be achieved by creating a new structure in government to work alongside the sector. Key elements would include assigning ministerial responsibility for the sector; creating a senior unit position to ensure coordination of horizontal issues; an annual meeting with senior ministers and the sector; and an annual progress report on addressing outstanding issues.

    We're very pleased by the most recent announcement by the Prime Minister, two weeks ago, of a minister responsible for the voluntary sector. A new responsibility centre is being created in the Department of Canadian Heritage to lead and coordinate relations and voluntary organizations across all departments, but we want to emphasize that this centre will only be effective if adequate new resources are put in place. So the first recommendation is that we ask that new resources be directed to this work, sufficient to ensure that the momentum and achievements of the voluntary sector initiative to date are maintained and effectively moved forward.

    The second issue that I'd like to address is advocacy. Advocacy is one of the most important contributions made by the voluntary sector to Canadian society. It is through advocacy that the sector identifies and promotes ideas and activities that have a public benefit, and positively engages individuals in our society. The current restrictions on registered charities unduly restrict their ability to play a more meaningful role in the public policy process. Policy advocacy is often one of the most efficient and effective ways for a charity to fulfill its mission, as has been well demonstrated by Canadian organizations such as Amnesty International, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the Canadian Cancer Society, among others.

    From the public policy perspective, the legislation is distinctly at odds with the values and goals championed in public policies.

¹  (1535)  

    The importance of that advocacy is recognized in the accord that was signed last December between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector. The policy code released last month, which will bring the accord into practice, describes the importance of individuals and organizations identifying new and emerging ideas and being actively engaged in public debate on issues of concern. This is what advocacy is all about.

    Corporations are entitled to engage in advocacy activity--it's called lobbying--with tax exemptions for such activity, but a similar activity by a charity is restricted to 10% of their human and financial resources. Canada has the most restrictive regime among common-law countries when it comes to the treatment of advocacy activities by charities. For these reasons, we are urging that the contribution and value of advocacy be recognized, and we urge that this committee recommend changes to the current legislation to lift the current restrictions on advocacy carried out on behalf of the charitable clause. Specifically, section 149.1(6) of the Income Tax Act must be rewritten to reflect clearly that while charities must not engage in any partisan political activity, they should be allowed to engage in non-partisan advocacy that is incidental and ancillary to their charitable purposes, as envisioned under the common law.

    The third point I'd like to make is related to alternative financing approaches. Voluntary organizations are recognized as a critical part of the fabric of our communities and society as a whole. Yet financial support for these organizations is more tenuous than ever. Downsizing by all governments has meant cuts for organizations and a shift away from sustained funding arrangements to project funding, which does not address the core costs of operating an organization and sustaining its capacity to do its work.

    Fluctuations in the economy mean fewer dollars coming in from fundraising campaigns, and the ways in which organizations are able to earn money through business activities are severely limited by regulation. If the sector is to be viable in order to meet Canadian needs and expectations, some new ways must be found to ensure that capacity can be sustained. Work through the VSI proposed a strategic investment approach, which departments could adopt in their dealings with the voluntary organizations. Such an approach is welcome, but it will touch only a few. There is a need for all players to come together to develop new and innovative ways in which the sector can be supportive.

    We are recommending the creation of a task force to explore the feasibility of new and creative financing instruments to expand their sources of revenue in financing for voluntary organizations. The task force should be comprised of the best expertise from public, private, and voluntary sectors.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    I thank you once again for having given us this opportunity to appear before you this afternoon and I hope to hear your opinions on these issues. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much

    Next we'll go to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Ms. Moore.

    Ms. Cathy Moore (Director, Consumer and Government Relations, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): Madam Chair, may I impose on you for a small favour before I begin. I am partially sighted myself and really have no idea what members of the committee are here. Would it be possible for people to just introduce themselves? Then I'll know where you are.

    The Chair: Yes, we can quickly go around the table, starting with Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Bryon Wilfert.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Roy Cullen, Etobicoke North.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Shawn Murphy, member of Parliament, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Massimo Pacetti. I'm replacing Gary Pillitteri.

    Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Maria Minna, member of Parliament, Beaches--East York, Toronto.

    Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Sophia Leung, for Vancouver Kingsway.

    The Chair: Sue Barnes, as chair.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Rahim Jaffer, Edmonton--Strathcona.

    Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Scott Brison, Kings--Hants, Nova Scotia.

    Ms. Cathy Moore: Thank you. That's very helpful for me.

    I will start.

[Translation]

    Thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak to you today. I will continue my presentation in English in order not to offend your ears with my very rudimentary French.

[English]

    I represent the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. We are a rehabilitation agency. In our context, rehabilitation means to restore to health or well-being. But to put that much more plainly, it is our contention, and our experience after 84 years of being in business, that it is possible for someone who is experiencing the condition of blindness to return to or to become an ordinary Canadian, and by ordinary I mean a parent, a child, a student, an employee, an employer, and a taxpayer. Timely intervention--in our experience usually quite short term--will result in this.

    You have our brief. I would like to take an opportunity today to bring to your attention two of the five points we made in the brief and then to summarize at the end.

    I'd like to start with labour market participation as an initiative that requires innovation and investment. In 2001 the federal government contributed $193 million to the employment of persons with disabilities nationwide, with an additional $30 million that went toward the Opportunities Fund.

    I would like to tell you about one of the results of that investment. Through a unique partnership that the CNIB was able to engineer using money from the Opportunities Fund and a private partnership with workopolis.com, which is Canada's largest career site in the country, serving over 25,000 employers a month, we were able to establish a resumé database of current blind job seekers across Canada. This raised the bar for the professional placement of blind persons exponentially because we were able to access everyone looking for a job across the country and leave a tool with employers that they were able to use themselves so that the CNIB could be removed from the process and an employer could directly connect with a particular job seeker.

    You may be interested in knowing what types of careers blind people are looking for. I can simply read to you from the first page of the website. Looking for work right now we have a legal assistant, a disability management consultant, a bilingual clerk, a social worker, a systems analyst, a computer programmer, a senior cost analyst, a counsellor, and an instructor. Please talk to me later if you want to know who they are and where they are. We have 307 resumés. That's what your investment helped to produce last year.

    But I want to tell you that at this point your investment in employment services for disabled persons is only one-fifth of your investment in employment services for aboriginal peoples. We in no way contest the amount of money going to aboriginal peoples, but we want to simply say that in order to leverage the full labour force participation of disabled persons, including blind and visually impaired persons, it does require investment dollars.

    We want to tie that to the fact that in the country at this moment there is not a consistent or comprehensive program providing assistive devices to persons with disabilities, in our case, of course, blind and visually impaired people. What is an assistive device? It's a magnifier, for example. This particular magnifier has the capability of working as a telescope and a magnifier. So what's the big deal? Let me tell you what the big deal is. This is a telephone book. With the magnifier I can read this telephone book by myself. Without that magnifier one of you has to do it for me. You can imagine how time-consuming that may be if I'm looking for a job or if I'm a senior looking for health services, etc.

    Currently, there are four provincial assistive devices programs in the country, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec. We're very appreciative of those programs, but the reality is that even they are tied to very stringent requirements.

    The segment of the population that increasingly needs this short-term intervention is seniors. Let me just give you some of the statistics. The most common cause of blindness at this moment is something called macular degeneration. Current statistics show that between the ages of 70 and over, one in four Canadians can expect to experience this condition.

¹  (1545)  

    Let me just tell you what that means. Right now in the age group 70 to 79 there are about 1,827,000 Canadians; 1 in 4 means that 452,000 of them will at some point require intervention in order to deal with macular degeneration. That's the size of the city of London. If we skip ahead a bit, in 2021 the age group between 70 and 79 will have nearly 3 million people, which translates into 731,000 people, the size of the city of Winnipeg, who are going to have a macular degeneration unless there is intervention. If it does occur, these people will be able to remain independent and in their home, but only with appropriate supports, such as a comprehensive assistive devices program. This particular magnifier can cost anywhere from $60, in Ontario, to $250, and this is only one item. There are others that are more expensive and become, of course, prohibitive to people on lower incomes.

    I would also like to bring to your attention the other pieces of the brief. There is a need, coupled with the statistics I've just told you, for more comprehensive research into the prevention of blindness and the treatment of blindness once it occurs.

    We would like to congratulate the government on their recent changes in tax credits, for example, the raising of the personal tax credit for persons with disabilities to $6,000 this year. You have no idea the good that does. However, there is more that can be done there, and we would like to encourage the government and the finance committee to continue in that vein. Very small changes in tax credits can have some very good exponential effects.

    To maintain healthy charitable organizations, which are very dependent, obviously, on outside philanthropy, it is also important that tax credits be accorded to people making donations. For example, we would like to encourage Revenue Canada to consider that the tax credits awarded to a charitable donation might be comparable to those with a political donation. We think that might be fair.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Could you please conclude?

    Ms. Cathy Moore: Yes.

    Finally, I would like to say that it would be very useful for non-government agencies to have assistance to provide culturally sensitive programming to aboriginal peoples in partnership with aboriginals.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for that contribution to our discussions.

    From Philanthropic Foundations Canada we have Ms. Pearson. Go ahead, please.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson (President and CEO, Philanthropic Foundations Canada): Good afternoon.

    We are an umbrella organization for Canada's independent foundations, which include family, private, and public foundations, although my membership is largely made up of family foundations.

[Translation]

    We have distributed an information kit which contains information highlighting the main points about our organization. And so I will not speak at length about PFC, but I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have about it.

[English]

    I am here this afternoon to do two things, to thank the committee for the support many of you gave to our recommendation last year to promote more charitable giving through foundations, and to urge you to continue to press the government to increase incentives for individual giving to support the activities of the charitable sector.

    The point of view I represent is that of the private funder, more specifically, that of family foundations. Family foundations, as you know, are by far the largest group of foundations in the Canadian foundation sector, representing about 83% of all foundations. That's been a pretty steady proportion of foundations for a number of years now. These foundations contribute almost half a billion dollars annually to Canadian charities. While the total amount of funding provided by family foundations to Canadian charities is not large in comparison with public funding, certainly when you look at government budgets at all levels, the qualitative impact of foundations' grants is vital to the voluntary sector. Many of these foundations play a unique role as social investors, supporters of innovation, and funders of untested but potentially promising initiatives. In this respect, private foundations occupy a different and complementary role beyond public funders.

    Private foundations are key players in realizing many public policy goals, such as stimulating innovation, investing in knowledge creation, and developing human resource skills in the voluntary sector. Without private foundations, many charities would not be able to do their part in meeting the social and human challenges of their communities. Without private foundations, many charities, and indeed many public foundations, would not find the matching partners they need to obtain public funding for community projects.

    That said, allow me to anticipate and maybe answer some of your questions. You may ask why public policy should support private philanthropic choices. The fact is that federal policy and tax incentives, as you know, already support individual giving. What we argue is that policy should focus on increasing overall giving and not discriminate in the individual choice of philanthropic vehicle, in other words, in the way in which you make the giving. Through tax incentives, the federal government supports the growth of philanthropy, the giving of both time and money, as a way of building support for the community. We know tax assistance works; it stimulates overall giving. The tax assistance measure for donations of publicly listed securities that was first introduced in 1997 significantly increased these donations. The government recognized this when it made the assistance permanent in the fall of 2001, before this committee actually began its hearings. But as you know, it did not give the same treatment to all donations. The full amount of the capital gain on gifted securities, publicly listed securities, is subject to tax if they are donated to a private foundation, while only half the gain is taxed if the gift is made to a public foundation. This has the effect, we argue, of discouraging the creation and growth of private foundations.

    At a time when communities are being called upon to rely on individuals, as government budgets shrink, why should public policy limit the choices for individual philanthropists? PSC believes federal policy should not deter giving to private foundations. Rather, it should focus on deterring any potential illegal or unethical behaviour by foundations after the gift is made. In other words, once the money has already been put into the foundation, deter any illegal activity through the Income Tax Act.

    Another question you may ask is whether private foundations give less than public foundations. Is that why tax incentives should favour gifts to public foundations? There is no evidence to show that private foundations are less responsible or less generous funders than public foundations. The top 10 family foundations provide 25% of all foundation grants in Canada and contributed almost $97 million in grants in 2000, which is the last year I have good numbers for. Private foundation grants are distributed across all sectors of the community and all sizes of charity. Indeed, according to our research, private foundations give more of their grants than any other funder to smaller charities. Private foundations are flexible, they can take a long-term view, they can take risks on start-ups, and they are a source of knowledge and expertise in their funding areas. Without a significant pool of such dollars, the community will lose. With such dollars, the community benefits.

¹  (1555)  

    You may ask whether private foundations are less accountable or less trustworthy than public foundations. Is this why there should be some discrimination? No. As you know, all charitable foundations submit publicly accessible annual reports of their grant-making activities to the government. All charitable foundations are required to disperse a minimum percentage of their endowment to charity. Private foundations are further subject to various restrictions in the Income Tax Act to prevent abuses of the foundations by their donors for their own benefit. Beyond these requirements, many private foundations are now developing principles and practices to govern their grant-making and to ensure that they inform, educate, and share knowledge widely with their grantees and other colleagues. PFC members subscribe to a statement of principles and practices for effective grant-making that provides a model, we hope, for more transparent and responsible communication with charities and grant seekers. In so doing, we are demonstrating that we are accountable not only to those who regulate us, but also to those we seek to help.

    Given that the current regime of accountability is strong and that the intent of the vast majority of donors and foundations is to behave accountably and responsibly, PFC argues that any concern about a potential private benefit arising from gifts of publicly traded securities to a private foundation should be addressed directly through provisions of the Income Tax Act on self-dealing. Gifts of securities to a private foundation can be further safeguarded, if necessary, through provisions to ensure that their proceeds are dedicated to charitable purposes. PFC's goal is to ensure that the gift is made in the first place to support the financing of the Canadian charitable sector.

    Finally, you might ask about other countries not giving tax assistance to support philanthropy by private foundations. Is this why Canada should not provide incentives either? The Canadian foundation sector is arguably underdeveloped compared with the foundation sector in our closest neighbour, the United States. While total assets of foundations in both countries have shrunk recently, due to adverse market conditions, the difference remains staggering. Total assets of private and public foundations in Canada are approximately $10 billion; in the United States they are close to $450 billion U.S. In both the U.S. and the United Kingdom, public policy supports the growth of private foundations. Indeed, in the U.K.--because I know it was asked last year in the committee what is happening in the United Kingdom--since April 2000 gifts of listed securities to all foundations are completely exempt from capital gains tax.

    In conclusion, PFC believes that Canada should follow the example set by the U.S. and the U.K. and go further in increasing the incentive it provides to charitable giving by extending the full capital gains exemption to gifts to private foundations. Misplaced fears about potential abuses are depriving charities across the country of resources they would otherwise have available and they desperately need. We ask the committee, in recognizing the contribution made by private foundations, to once again urge the government to encourage these funders as fully as possible by providing them with the tax incentives already provided to public foundations.

    Thank you.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we'll hear from the Canadian Conference of the Arts. Ms. Williams, go ahead.

    Ms. Megan Williams (National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts): Thank you. I'm very pleased to represent the board of directors and the members of the Canadian Conference of the Arts here this afternoon.

    There are many pressing issues at play in the cultural sector, and some of them stem from financial matters that are well within the purview of this committee to address. We've set out nine recommendations in our written submission, and I'll touch on some of them in my remarks today. I urge you to consider all of them for inclusion within your recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

    This year marks ten years since the passage of the Status of the Artist Act. The act has recently undergone a mandatory review, which has now been received by the Department of Heritage. Artist committees that aided in drafting this act foresaw that it would have a far greater impact on the working lives of artists than has been the case. We hope the recommendations included in the evaluative review will move toward broadening the impact of the act's provisions. Many of the recommendations in this brief deal with the kinds of issues that the cultural sector had hoped would be influenced by the Status of the Artist Act.

    A poll carried out by Ipsos-Reid in August of this year indicated that Canadians are overwhelmingly proud of Canadian culture and identity and believe that Canadian culture should be promoted more widely. Why do we only pay lip service to the importance of the contribution of artists, then, and shrink from putting in place regulatory measures that would make it possible for creators to derive more income from their work and have improved access to social benefits available to other classes of workers?

    It is Canada's artists who give the country its profile abroad, who make us feel proud when international headlines broadcast that not only have three Canadians been nominated for the Booker Prize, but that one of them has actually won it. Furthermore, artists play a primary role in sustaining Canada's quality of life, which is why the problems of the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra are so distressing, and not just for Calgarians. An article in the Globe and Mail's “Report on Business” last week stated that

too many have bought into Mr. Klein's mantra of fiscal responsibility at any price, believing the arts must be managed in the same way as for-profit entities. Well, the reality is that if corporations managed their businesses as tightly as arts groups already do, profitability would soar.

    The theme throughout our submission is clear. Canadian artists will always require the support of all three levels of government. We're not talking simply about subsidies. Equally important are other regulatory tools such as ownership restrictions, content quotas, and favourable tax treatment.

    Here are three examples of the regulatory measures that would greatly assist artists. The first is income back-averaging on a five-year basis, to address the unique needs of growing numbers of self-employed individuals in Canada, both within the cultural sector and in other sectors of the economy.

    Secondly, a study needs to be done on self-employment in Canada. This is the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and our government seems to ignore it. We believe there must be a full and comprehensive study in this field. The issue is of particular importance to the cultural sector, where over 50% of workers consider themselves self-employed. The unique work characteristics of self-employed artists are not well understood by officials at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who, for example, continue to use inappropriate tests to determine the employment status of artists in performing arts companies.

    Thirdly, given that artists in Canada are among the highest qualified but lowest paid individuals in the workforce, the CCA urges consideration of an income tax exemption on copyright incomes, similar to the one in place in the province of Quebec. This would acknowledge the risk and the research and development components inherent in all creative activity.

    I also want to give a little pep talk on respecting the copyright and intellectual property of artists. Canadians need to understand that revenue from copyrighted materials is essential to creators, get behind efforts to prevent piracy of music over the Internet, and stop complaining about the minimal levies charged on blank tapes and discs used to make private recordings.

    Furthermore, direct subsidies continue to be an important aspect of government support for the arts. In May 2002, under the rubric “Tomorrow Starts Today”, the federal government announced an investment of some $560 million over three years, a sum that went a long way toward restoring funds lost from the arts in previous cutbacks.

º  (1605)  

    The CCA will be working with officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage to ensure that the process is in place for the renewal of these funds as the three-year commitment draws to a close. We encourage you, on your parliamentary committees, to endorse the proposals that will come forward for the renewal of these essential funds.

    I want to now pick up on some remarks that Shauna Sylvester made earlier. At the beginning of this month there was an assembly of the public benefit organizations to mark the culmination of the three-year voluntary sector initiative aimed at improving the relationship between the non-profit sector and the government and increasing the capacity of the sector. At this closing assembly, the announcement was made that the sector would now have a designated minister, Sheila Copps. That initiative was welcomed, of course, by the arts. One of the minister's responsibilities will be the implementation of the accord, which Shauna showed you. This accord between the government and the sector was signed last year and sets out several important commitments between the government and civil society.

    The cultural sector sets particular store in the accord's acknowledgment of the centrality of advocacy to third-sector organizations and also its corollary, the recognition of the value of the sector's input into public policy debates. What needs to be accomplished next, however, is an updating of the legislated definition of charity, as we are labouring under terms established during Shakespeare's period, long before women were considered to be persons under the law.

    Because advocacy was not anticipated as a charitable purpose back in 1601, contemporary organizations that perform this type of work risk losing their charitable status. For organizations like mine, and like the other organizations sitting here today, even making presentations before a standing committee might be construed as advocacy and therefore deemed inappropriate activity.

    We continue to be committed to contributing to public policy discussions on behalf of our members. To quote John Hobday, executive director of the Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Family Foundation, “Advocacy is absolutely essential, not as an afterthought or only in time of crisis, but as an on-going and relentless process.”

    I would therefore urge this committee to use its influence with the Department of Finance to endorse the simple solution put forward by thousands of members of the non-profit sector who have been consulted over the past two years: narrow the definition of political activity to mean partisan political activity, and proscribe it, which all charities agree is correct; and encourage charities to engage in as much advocacy as they deem appropriate, as long as these activities relate directly to their purposes.

    Finally, I'd like to draw committee members' attention to the changing face of public sector support for non-profit organizations, of which many are arts organizations. What was once core funding has now evolved into project-based funding. At the time it seemed like a good idea, but government officials and NGOs alike have come to deplore this system. The sheer volume of accountability measures currently required by government departments for each and every project is out of all proportion to the usually quite small amounts of money involved. Better and more efficient ways of providing public sector funding to the cultural sector and others, while still ensuring proper accountability and reporting practices, are urgently needed. Following the recommendations that Shauna Sylvester mentioned, which came out of the voluntary sector initiative, would be a good place to start.

    I would like to close with an account from a very small, underfunded community organization in India. Apparently, in that country even small community education and health groups frequently house theatre companies. An individual from one such organization was explaining to a group of visiting Canadian students that the presence of artists helps deliver their educational messages while still reminding people of the value of the arts. This is how it was expressed: “How else do you show people that if they manage to get out of poverty, there's something worth living for?”

    The arts in Canada are worth living for. They are worth preserving, encouraging, and nurturing. They are worthy of our support, both financially and in kind. They are good investments and provide a tremendous return. We urge the standing committee to support the recommendations in our submission and to include them in your report to the finance minister.

    Thank you very much.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now to the Canadian Library Association. Mr. Butcher, go ahead, sir.

    Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association): Thank you.

    This is a somewhat challenging situation for me, not just because I'm the token male on the panel here, or because I'm following such an august group of speakers so far; it's because, as you heard at the beginning, I've been on the job for three and a half days. But I've been a lifelong supporter and user of libraries, as I'm sure many of you have, and I'm a passionate believer in the role that libraries play in the lives of your constituents.

    I am ably backed up this afternoon by Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien, a former CLA staffer who works in the sector.

    The CLA is Canada's national English language association of libraries and librarians. Let me give you a few numbers. We have 2,700 members, who represent 57,000 library workers across the country. We also speak for the interests of the 21 million Canadians who are members of libraries. So a lot of your constituents are our clients.

    Our message today is that libraries can no longer be thought of as institutions of purely provincial or municipal concern. Libraries provide a wide range of services to all Canadians, and in the process contribute to a number of federal policy objectives. The government's innovation strategy, for example, marks an important step towards that recognition.

    In our brief today, I would like to touch on five areas of library activity that should be of interest to you. Each of these areas is supported, to a certain extent, by federal programs. But I know it has been a long day, and I know you heard from one of our colleagues earlier in the day, so here is the key message. We urge the committee members to take note of these programs, which have only short-term funding, and to recommend to the government that they be placed on a permanent, or at least a five-year, funding basis to allow our constituency to do the long-term planning that will maximize the value of your investment in the library community.

    First, libraries support lifelong learning. Some of us, I believe Madam Chair as well, have spent a few years being lifelong learners. My resumé also shows that. So I think we speak the same language here.

    Libraries help children, youth, and families develop and nurture the love of reading and the joy of learning. They provide resources for adults looking to improve their newly learned ability to read; for workers looking to upgrade their skills; and for new immigrants looking to become part of the Canadian mosaic. With the help of HRDC's National Literacy Secretariat, and thanks to their own trained staff, libraries help ensure that all Canadians have the prerequisite for embarking on a lifelong adventure of learning.

    Second, libraries equalize opportunities. For any number of reasons--location, family circumstances, language, or whatever--not all Canadians have the same opportunities to participate in the knowledge-based economy. In this regard, libraries ensure that government information and materials are available to all Canadians.

    Having worked for over 75 years with Communications Canada's depository services program, libraries would like to see that program now transferred to the new institution resulting from the merger of the National Library and the National Archives.

    With the assistance of HRDC's social development directorate, libraries also assist people with disabilities. For example, over three million Canadians cannot read conventional print as a result of visual, physical, or perceptual disability. There are partnerships between CNIB and local libraries. Libraries across the country provide adaptive technology so that all people can have equitable access to all media.

    Third, libraries support electronic and distance learning, another innovation issue. In the digital age, Canada's public libraries continue to fulfill their century-old function as the people's university. With assistance from HRDC's office of learning technologies, libraries have built on their reputation as credible, free, and neutral institutions available to all citizens.

º  (1615)  

    In urban centres, they often provide the complementary information resources necessary to support independent learners looking to upgrade their job skills while balancing their home and work life. For Canadians living in rural and remote communities, the Minister of Industry's announcement that the expansion of broadband networks was one of five areas of eligible projects under the $2 billion infrastructure fund was good news.

    These same communities have benefited from Canada Post's book rate for many years. That rate now needs to be extended to all the resources that libraries lend--CDs, audiotapes, videos, etc.

    Fourth, libraries help overcome the digital divide. Canada's libraries are helping people to upgrade their information accessing skills so that they can compete in the new knowledge economy. With the help of some Industry Canada programs--Connecting Canadians' Community Access; Smart Communities; and LibraryNet--and Canadian Heritage's Young Canada Works program, all of Canada's public libraries are connected to the Internet. They provide not only Internet access but also the training to those who have not had the opportunity either at school or at home to learn how to access the resource. And you all know how important the Internet is in the 21st century.

    Finally, libraries provide access to Canada's heritage. Libraries expand the knowledge of our past and the use of unique collections of materials by digitizing them and making them available through the Internet. The Department of Canadian Heritage's digital cultural content initiative and its Canadian Heritage information network, as well as Industry Canada's digital collections programs, are proving of benefit to the development of multimedia Canadian content. And I'm sure some of our arts colleagues would agree.

    In conclusion, CLA urges the committee to recognize explicitly the role performed by libraries in ensuring that all Canadians get to participate in the knowledge-based economy. More specifically, we would like to see the committee recommend that the various federal programs mentioned in our brief be put on permanent financial footing.

    I thank the committee for its attention. Leacy and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we'll go to Ms. Patten for a brief put forward by Community Foundations of Canada.

    Go ahead.

    Ms. Monica Patten (President and CEO, Community Foundations of Canada): Thank you, and thank you so much for the invitation to be here this afternoon.

    In listening to my colleagues around the table, all of whom are actors and very significant leaders in the voluntary sector, I was struck again by how important the role and value of the voluntary sector is in this country and the role of philanthropy. It is really the role of philanthropy I want to speak about very briefly, following up on some of the comments my colleague Hilary Pearson has made.

    The submission I forwarded last month to you describes in some detail the work of community foundations across the country, and I will not be going into that, except to remind you of who we are, because we still remain a fairly well kept secret in this country. Many people are not aware of the role and the characteristics of community foundations. In a nutshell, we are 123, and growing, locally-based, community-based foundations that gather financial resources from members of our local communities. We invest those resources locally and return the investment earnings into our local communities for a variety of charitable activities. So we raise and build endowment funds, we make grants, and we have a very important role to play in bringing the community together and encouraging the community to come together to tackle local issues and local priorities.

    As well as playing a very important role locally, we have been increasingly active at the national level and at other regional levels as well, and are particularly proud of our participation in what has already been described to you as the voluntary sector initiative. Let me take a moment to thank the Government of Canada and this committee for the support that has been offered to the voluntary sector in a variety of ways as the voluntary sector initiative has unfolded over the course of the last couple of years.

    I want to talk about two issues that matter deeply to community foundations, and more broadly to philanthropy. One of them has been mentioned, and the other one, frankly, we are facing as we speak. I want to spend a few moments talking about that. And then I want to spend a few moments in support of some comments my colleagues have already made.

    The first point I want to make Hilary Pearson has made very elegantly, and I really want to support it. In fact, I want to read back to you a quote from this particular committee's recommendations last year. The committee recommended that “the government exempt fully from capital gains taxation donations of publicly traded securities to charitable organizations, including private foundations”. I want to do two things. I want to support the elimination of the capital gains tax in its entirety. I think there has been ample demonstration of the motivation and the charitable benefit that has already been accrued by the partial elimination, and it is absolutely clear to us that this is a very significant motivator to donors and that it needs to be eliminated in its entirety, as it has been in other countries. I also want to very strongly urge that absolutely the same provision be in place for private foundations as is in place for public foundations.

    This is about increasing philanthropy in our country. This is about inviting and encouraging private citizens to step forward and use their resources, what they have been given, offering them a chance to give back to their communities in a way that makes sense for them, whether it is to a public foundation, through a community foundation, or to a private foundation. So we would urge you to restate very firmly that recommendation you made in last year's report.

º  (1620)  

    The big issue facing many foundations at the moment, particularly foundations that have endowments--you will recognize this as an issue, and I wrote about it in the submission--is the disbursement quota that is a requirement of each one of us who has an obligation to put some money back into the public sphere for charitable activity. Let me remind you that we are required--and the formula is not quite as precise as this--to disburse annually 4.5% of the market value of our endowed capital for charitable purposes. I have scanned the returns of my members, and I think my colleagues Hilary and others who have investments around the table would wonder out loud who the heck is getting 4.5% these days on anything.

    We have a critical issue facing us to do with disbursement, but it is not as simple as how much money we put out there in the community and for what. Clearly, the return on investment will not allow us to meet the obligations that have been laid out in the Income Tax Act. We are very appreciative of the fact that there is administrative relief possible; CCRA has made that possible, and we will be continuing to work with them on that. But it is more complex than simply the amount of money you put out there in the community. It is, in fact, a governance issue for community foundations. It is about how a community foundation makes the decisions to serve its community. It is about how we relate to those organizations to which we have long been giving grants. We now have to say, we can't do that this year. So not only have they faced cutbacks from various levels of government, not only are donors finding it more challenging to step up and make charitable contributions, but they're facing funders like mine who are saying, this is going to be tough, folks; we're not sure we're going to be able to put the same amount of money out there for your organizations.

    Finally, it has to do with something I've already mentioned, our relations with donors. Donors have given us money in trust, they have given us money because they care about their communities, they care about this country, and they want to see their money do good things in their communities and for this country. We have obligations to our donors, to our organizations, and to the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, we don't have any easy answers on this challenge of disbursement quota; nobody does around the markets.

    I do want to tell you, though, with great pleasure, that there is going to be a meeting convened in a couple of weeks by the Muttart Foundation, a private foundation in Canada. The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, CCRA, and we very much hope the Department of Finance will be present. Philanthropic Foundations Canada will be present, as will a number of other foundations. We expect that the Department of Finance will be a significant participant in that coming together to look at the issue of disbursement quota. We will be very disappointed if the Department of Finance does not listen well and clearly and is not helpful to those of us in the voluntary and the charitable sector as we tackle this very pressing issue.

    I hope, if I have an opportunity to come and speak before you next year, I will be able to report and to say thank you for the changes that have been brought about to the disbursement quota. They are urgent, they are long-term, and they are long overdue.

    Finally, I am a long-time participant in the work of the voluntary sector initiative, and for some reason have been invited to be the interim chair of the Voluntary Sector Forum, a task I take very seriously and feel in fact very privileged to have been asked to take on. I want to add my voice on two critical issues that have already been identified on behalf of community foundations and others in the world of philanthropy. I urge you to take a look at the advocacy issue in the way that has been described to you, to make sure it is possible for charities to engage in non-partisan advocacy that is incidental and ancillary to their charitable purposes. That must change. We must become aligned with other countries who have examined this issue, from whom we can learn, and who, frankly, are miles ahead of us in this.

    The final point I want to make is that the work of the voluntary sector initiative carry on. It is important work. We have an extraordinary opportunity for continued partnership, and we must not lose that. I would urge you very seriously to make a very firm commitment of resources to continue the work of the voluntary sector, in partnership with the Government of Canada, for the goal we have in common.

    Thank you.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, and I thank all of you for being so considerate of the time constraints.

    I think we'll stick with five-minute rounds, and we can get some second rounds on this side.

    Go ahead, Mr. Jaffer.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thanks, Madam Chair.

    I have a number of questions, but I'll try to keep within that five-minute framework, and then if I can get into another round, that would be great.

    I just wanted to start by getting a little bit of clarification, if possible, both from Ms. Patten and Ms. Pearson. You spoke about the idea of the effects of reducing capital gains tax or eliminating it completely. I'm happy to see that you did take note of the recommendation we put in the last report to eliminate it completely. We've often argued that in fact eliminating capital gains tax would allow not only more money in the hands of companies and individuals to make decisions on where they want to spend that money, but it could in fact help in larger donations to whatever organizations are out there searching for funds. But often corporations and individuals are painted as being greedy if in fact that money is left in their hands.

    I'm wondering if you have any documentation or whether your organizations have done any research that correlates the idea of reducing capital gains tax and the increase this could sometimes have on your industries you are working in.

    Ms. Monica Patten: If I may, I'll start, and then Hilary perhaps will have something to add to it.

    Yes, we do. Not only have the Community Foundations of Canada documented very successfully the additional resources that have come into this sector as a result of the partial gain, but other organizations have as well. I don't have that material here with me, but it has been very well documented. In fact, it has been documented collectively as well, so it takes a look at how the whole sector has benefited. I apologize, I don't have those numbers. They are probably buried in a file here.

    I can tell you lots of stories about donors who have approached a number of organizations and made significantly larger gifts than they would have for causes and organizations that they believe to be very important.

º  (1630)  

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: I'll just very briefly answer that unfortunately for private foundations, we can't demonstrate the same amount of information because we don't have the incentive. All we can do anecdotally is to say that we know of a number of cases where donors would have made donations and did not. I have testimonials of that from some of my members who would have made donations.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer: If there are some figures coming from some other countries where that has in fact moved in that direction, that could be useful as well. I appreciate that.

    Another question I have, if I can squeeze another one in, is just another clarification. The question is on the disability tax credit. Mrs. Moore, you spoke about how it helps a lot of people with disabilities. Obviously there are many costs associated with people with disabilities, and I think the tax credit makes their lives a little bit easier, but this is on the issue we were dealing with on the process of applying for that disability tax credit. I simply want to know if you've heard any feedback from some of the people you represent and deal with on how that particular process of the tax credit has affected many of the people you represent. Especially in my constituency office, many people have come in recently complaining about the process they've been put through and the hardship of reapplying every year with obvious disabilities. I wonder if you could give us some feedback on that situation.

    Ms. Cathy Moore: I can give you some feedback, but perhaps I'll just give you the short answer.

    Clearly the process as it exists right now, with I believe the best intentions of CCRA, is still very problematic. It's more problematic for disabilities that are perhaps occasional, intermittent, and also disabilities that are a little bit harder to medically categorize--for example, mental illness and that sort of thing.

    I will say diplomatically that CCRA is demonstrating willingness to ensure that the process becomes less problematic and in some cases less draconian, if I can put that in. But it's a process that's ongoing. It's a process that's hugely frustrating for both sides.

    We have had cases, as perhaps some of your constituents have said to you, of persons who have had artificial eyes for 35 years, who have been instructed that they must go and find an ophthalmologist to prove that they in fact are blind. We have of course suggested that perhaps they should just go and take their eyes out to show them, but of course that's hardly an appropriate thing to do.

    I would suggest that with the process the CCRA has in place and the fact that if that process were followed, if the consultations were followed and listened to, a lot of the issues could be cleared up. That would be my comment.

    The Chair: That's it for now.

    Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Chair, I would like to continue on this issue of the disability tax credit.

    What you were mentioning, concerning the fact that the Department of Finance or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency have more trouble recognizing certain diseases than others, is quite true. For instance, several people in my riding who have degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease and can no longer function normally are not eligible for the disability tax credit.

    I know one gentleman who has Parkinson's disease and who has trouble walking. His doctor was asked whether this person could walk by himself if he stopped every 50 metres. Of course he can walk 50 metres, but it takes him 15 or 20 minutes.

    It's completely ridiculous. I think that we absolutely have to force the Department of Finance or the government to broaden the notion of “disabled person“ for the purposes of this credit.

    You asked that the credit be entirely refundable. I agree with you, because a disabled person, no matter what his or her income level, has additional expenses. However, in the current context, can these two battles be waged simultaneously? Can we fight at one at the same time to have eligibility for this credit broadened and also to have this tax credit be refundable?

    I would like an assessment from you, and if I still have a little time left, I will put some questions to the representatives of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, who made several very interesting recommendations.

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Ms. Cathy Moore: I will ask Fran Cutler to respond to your question.

    Ms. Fran Cutler (National Chair, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): It's difficult for us to speak for the many other rehabilitation organizations that represent people with disabilities. Our experience, of course, is limited to those who are blind, vision impaired, and deaf-blind. But it certainly is a continuing problem, and in order to have any hope of having influence with all levels of government, we have to band together with other disability organizations. I think we're making slow progress, but we do wish there was a little more understanding at all levels of government, because it is really very difficult for so many people with disabilities to live the productive lives they are capable of living.

    The biggest barrier to employment and independence for those with disabilities is the negative assumptions of the temporarily able-bodied.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: Do I still have some time?

    The Chair: Of course.

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to go back to the last recommendation of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which urges the federal government to provide core operating support to not-for-profit organizations rather than project-based funding. I would like you to elaborate.

    I was also wondering if, within the context of an extension of the Infrastructure Works Program, greater emphasis could not be placed on a component which already existed in the previous infrastructure program, component No. 3, which allowed certain creation and dissemination bodies to be put in place. In the regions, there is a dirth of such creation and dissemination bodies, and I expect that the situation is one which prevails not only in Quebec but elsewhere. Could the committee not recommend to the government that part 3 be broadened within the context of an extension of the Infrastructure Works Program, so as to encourage the development of creation and dissemination sites in the regions?

    Ms. Megan Williams: I want to make sure I understood the question. Are you asking whether the Department of Canadian Heritage Infrastructure Works Program can be extended for a period of three years at a time?

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: In fact, I would like to know whether you think we need a program similar to the Infrastructure Works Program, but in the cultural field, in particular as concerns dissemination and creation organizations.

    Ms. Megan Williams: Yes, obviously there are crying needs where cultural infrastructure is concerned. We know that some money had been earmarked for infrastructure in the Heritage Canada fund I mentioned, but that money has already been spent, although there are still two years left in the life of the program. There are many theatre and musical organizations that are experiencing financial difficulties, as you mentioned.

    Thank you for the question.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Minna, five minutes, then Mr. Brison, Mr. Wilfert, and Ms. Leung.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to go to Ms. Rektor. This is an area with which I have some familiarity, as I was on your side lobbying for some things some years ago. In your submission you noted that among common law countries Canada is probably the most restrictive with regard to treatment of advocacy. What is the situation in other countries at this time?

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: I'll respond for the Voluntary Sector Forum. The situation in other Commonwealth countries is far in advance of Canada. In England we have a situation where Tony Blair has taken some leadership more recently. They had a better situation, where you could do basically up to 49% advocacy. What they have is the common law, and they say as long as your activities are in pursuit of charitable purposes, they are incidental, they are ancillary, there's a reasoned relationship between how much you are spending and your charitable purposes, you can engage in advocacy. In August of this year, I think, they came out with a commission report that said charities engaged in advocacy are critical to democracy. These are the same findings the Australian and Scottish commissions have come up with. There is a much stronger recognition of the role of advocacy by charities for democratic development in a country.

    In a civil law situation you almost have no restrictions. In the Netherlands, Germany, France, even in Japan, you don't have the kinds of restrictions we have here.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Maria Minna: In Canada it's 10%, if I'm not mistaken.

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: That's right, it's 10%. I should be really clear, we don't know what that 10% is measuring.

    Ms. Maria Minna: So it's not a clear definition.

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: No, it's not a clear definition at all. We don't know. For example, we are not to use images that influence, not to use images that evoke emotions. If I've been invited here, I can present new facts and figures, but I can't come and talk to you as a minister on my own accord and not bring new information. That would be considered advocacy. That means 10% of my human and financial resources. If you consider that 80% of the charities in this country have budgets under $100,000, that's not very much money.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I know from discussion with colleagues and others that the concern is that if you open it up, it allows a whole lot of other charities or other types of organizations into the system, and you may end up with organizations you hadn't intended to benefit from this process. Is that something that concerns you?

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: It's not something we're concerned about, because you still have the definition of charity. All organizations must meet the public benefit test. Currently, we have four heads of charities, advancement of religion, advancement of education, addressing poverty, or other issues beneficial to the community. In order to even get that fourth category, you have to make an analogy to 1601, which is what Megan Williams talked about, the Elizabethan Statute of Uses. So we're in effect talking about a 401-year-old law.

    What we would eventually like to see is a new and modern definition of charities. That's certainly something Australia has moved towards. But we're not talking about a whole bunch of groups coming into the fold, we're talking about groups that have charitable purposes, that speak on behalf of the public good, not private interest, having access to non-partisan advocacy activities.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Okay.

    I'll go to the tax credit issue. It was raised by Ms. Williams, if I'm not mistaken, with respect to donations. This is something I was actually involved with myself some years ago. With the voluntary sector in Canada being worth, I think, probably in the billions, we forget to look at the economic value the voluntary sector in general has in this country. As you know, we have just signed a new accord as a country with the voluntary sector in this country. I want to look at the other side, and that is donations. You mentioned with respect to political donations that there is a tax credit that is much higher and you want something comparable. I was pushing for something similar to that some years ago. The greater concern, of course, is the possible abuse. Can you explain to me what you meant exactly? Were you asking for exactly the same treatment or something slightly different?

    Ms. Megan Williams: I believe you're posing your question to Hilary Pearson.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: I was asking for essentially the same treatment that's already being given to donors who give to public foundations. So what we're asking for is not setting a precedent, it's merely equal treatment. The effect now is a disincentive to donors to private foundations.

    Ms. Maria Minna: So what is the current situation with respect to donations? I'm a bit out of date. If I make a $300 donation to your organization, how does that work in respect of tax?

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: Oh, okay. What we're talking about is donations of publicly listed securities, shares of corporations.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Okay, you're not talking about straight donations.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: No, just listed securities, and it's a capital gains tax.

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Maria Minna: It was basically your comment about comparable tax credits, which really goes to the other kind of donation. Somebody did make a comment on that, that's why I was asking.

    Ms. Cathy Moore: Yes, I did. I can address it generally. I think there are probably far more knowledgeable people in this room. At this point you must get up to $700 before you can begin to amass a tax credit for charitable donations. At that point, I believe, it's at 35%, and it goes down as donations increase. Anyone in this room, please correct me if I'm giving this wrong, but a political contribution would be a 50% tax credit at that point.

    Ms. Maria Minna: It's actually higher than that, I think.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Brison.

    Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to each of you for your interventions today.

    My first question is on the issue of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities. What is the total amount of tax revenue garnered by the federal government from capital gains tax on the donation of publicly listed securities over the last couple of years? I recognize that probably it's a lot less this year, as I don't know too many capital market participants this year who have a capital gain, but I'd be interested in the total amount over the last couple of years. How much are we talking about?

    Ms. Monica Patten: I can't tell you that in total for the whole foundation sector, and I will leave Hilary to make a comment about private foundations. You can't provide the answer to that, because there is no experience in that arena.

    Within the community foundation world itself--and I'm leaving out the universities, the hospitals, and so on, others who have been big beneficiaries of this particular tax measure--let me use the number $200 million a year in the last couple of years as the total of new gifts to community foundations. About 80% of those would have been as a result of this particular tax measure, which is very significant. We're talking about very large gifts that would likely not have come into community foundations, in our case, had that tax measure not been in place. It was really quite phenomenal. Others who may have benefited from that could speak as well and perhaps cite numbers. What we experienced in the community foundation world was significant, we were very significant beneficiaries, but what was experienced in the world of universities, for example, was probably much higher than that, and perhaps in some arts areas as well, I don't know that, but perhaps in some of the larger arts institutions.

    Mr. Scott Brison: To be clear, I am very supportive, as is the PC Party, of the elimination of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities, and we've maintained that position now for three or four years. It seems counterintuitive that there be a public policy interest in taxing people when they contribute, particularly given the degree to which governments have withdrawn from the provision of services. The federal government and, ultimately, due to transfers, the provinces and the municipalities have pulled back, and as a result, the philanthropic sector has been asked to do more. I think the tax-based measures in eliminating the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities make so much sense, particularly when we compare ourselves to the tax regime in the U.S. and the degree to which we're putting the Canadian philanthropic sector at a disadvantage. Whether it's a hospital foundation, a university endowment, a community foundation, or a family foundation, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

    The reason I asked about the specific number is that if we really calculated what the number is--and I'd like to have that information--I bet you we would find it's a very small amount of money in terms of the actual capital gains tax we are receiving as a country from the gifts of publicly listed securities to the philanthropic sector. If we were to compare that number to not just the actual dollar value of the contributions but the leveraged impact of those contributions and the degree to which there's a partnership involved in a lot of these contributions and the impact societally, I think we would see that it's in fact bad economics to be taking that money.

    There's one other question. Hopefully, I'll get to ask more than that. The chair is so good to me sometimes. I have heard--this is just anecdotal, but maybe you can tell me whether I've heard correctly--that people who are inclined to contribute publicly listed securities to the philanthropic sector are holding back in anticipation that the government might eliminate the capital gains tax, and that is denying some members of the non-profit sector a contribution right now while we dilly-dally and dither and generally frig around with this issue.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Maybe you could make a stab at the answer, Ms. Patten.

    Ms. Monica Patten: I have not heard that. Obviously, the current state of the economy is a contributing factor to donors holding back, and that's--

    Mr. Scott Brison: I don't know who has a capital gain.

    Ms. Monica Patten: Exactly. I would just urge you to get on with the dilly-dallying so that we can get those cheques, if in fact that is the case. But I have not in fact heard that.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Pearson, would you like to add something?

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: I agree with Monica. I actually haven't heard that. I think, though, that there is some anecdotal information about the fact that donations have been smaller or that the donors have chosen to perhaps give only to a university endowment and not also to a community foundation, for example, and that may be due to the impact of the market and the poor economic conditions more than the tax issue. However, I do think that the tax issue has a behavioural impact.

    Mr. Scott Brison: I understand there is one cheque for the University of Western Ontario from Donald K. Johnson. He's waiting for the rest of....

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Brison.There's a piece of information I did not know.

    Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank all of the presenters. As one who has been involved in many non-profit, volunteer organizations in my own community—I'm still on the board of one I used to chair, after seventeen years—I certainly applaud that.

    By the way, Mr. Butcher, it's not the quantity of men at the table, it's the quality that really matters.

    I have a couple of comments and one question.

    I don't intend to turn this into a debate, but just for the record on the issue of the disability tax credit—and I'm now speaking of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance—these amendments that are proposed, and only proposed, should not disqualify anyone who previously qualified in accordance with the policy intent of the disability tax credit.

    As you know, there was the Hamilton case, which went far beyond the scope of feeding oneself. It was someone who was allergic to particular products, and basically, the issue was driving. Therefore, we are looking at that. We also will be—if we're not already—in consultation with various organizations affected in order to seek input on this. So I want to assure you that, as a government that provides over $1 billion in terms of tax measures and over $3 billion through HRDC programs, this particular issue is very important to us, obviously. I certainly can assure you that for the people who deserve the tax credit and are currently getting it, there is no intent on behalf of the government to do otherwise. There is some clarification, as I say, particularly because of the Hamilton case.

    Having said that, on the issue of advocacy, we certainly want to further explore the issue of narrowing the definition. I think everyone should be involved in advocacy, but I don't know that we need to pay to have people do it. I think it's important that organizations come and state their cases, although I know it's often costly for organizations to come here.

    On the issue of the arts and the blank cassettes, I couldn't agree with you more. As an old-fashioned Canadian nationalist, I think this issue is important, particularly for our artists. I make no apologies for that one.

    I did want to ask a question to the Conference of the Arts. Ms. Patten, you talked about capital gains, capital gains tax, forced dependency, and all of that. You said CCRA was attending a conference. Has the Department of Finance been invited, and have you received a reply? If you could also forward me any other details, I would appreciate it.

º  (1655)  

    Ms. Monica Patten: I would be delighted to do that. This is a conference that is being hosted by a private foundation, the Muttart Foundation, and my understanding is that CCRA has committed, I believe at a fairly senior level, to be present at that two-and-a-half-day session. The Department of Finance has committed that somebody will be in the room, but the level of seniority and authority of that person is not clear, and that is of concern to us. As I said, though, I would be happy to forward you further information.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd certainly appreciate that.

    I'll also make a personal comment. My mother suffers from macular degeneration. I don't know which is the one that is worse, the wet or the dry. Whatever the worse one is, my mother has that, so I'm very familiar with the issues and what you were presenting today, ma'am, and I do appreciate that. Often, it's because of those issues that we....

    Ms. Minna mentioned the agreement, and I know some of you mentioned the volunteer sector. This is a sector that is very important. We could not produce half the things we do in communities, from Santa Claus parades to the work of Communities in Bloom festivals, etc., without the volunteer sector. We could never calculate the dollars, but I think government's role is to assist where it can, particularly in areas of taxation.

    One of the things I was heartened to hear was the comment that there has been progress made over the years. Obviously, we're not going to see everything happen overnight, but the fact is that there is progress each year. You've come here and are reporting back to us that you are seeing the substantial changes that are made. Making changes that benefit organizations is important.

    Lastly, with regard to connecting Canadians, I know from my own libraries in my own community that in terms of putting in computers and access, one of the significant changes is for people from different socio-economic backgrounds with lower economic dollars. They are now using the library in such a way that the demographics have changed significantly. This has been extremely revealing both to the library board and to the city council. I think that is very important, because we can measure it. Sometimes we don't measure things just that way, we measure them in dollars and cents. However, we also should be measuring in terms of the social benefits that are derived, and what those mean for the average person as well.

    Again, I just thought I'd make that observation.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much,

    Ms. Leung, please.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Chair, thank you.

    I just want to thank you all for your very fine presentations. I have to echo all my colleagues here, that we do appreciate the contributions from volunteers and voluntary organizations. I myself have served on twenty organizations, mainly in Vancouver, B.C., and I know how much your contributions are appreciated. So I just want to say thank you, all.

    I have a few questions. Perhaps I can start with Ms. Moore and Ms. Cutler.

    You indicated in your report that the federal government provides about $193 million annually to assist persons with disabilities and a further $30 million to help support people with disabilities in terms of their employability. I just want to ask you to comment on how, for instance, CNIB utilizes....

    I have a CNIB branch in my riding, so I have visited them and have contact with them. In fact, I think I've met you before.

    I'd just like to know how useful that financial assistance is. Of course, we always ask for more grants, if possible. Perhaps you can comment on how useful it is for you.

    Ms. Cathy Moore: Employability is problematic for persons with disabilities, and particularly for people with vision problems at certain points--at access points, transitions in life, that type of thing, from school to work, from high school to university, university into the workforce, etc. Those are the times when intervention is required, and those are the times when it is most productive for us to access programming that allows us to provide the interventions.

    Specifically, I'm again going back to potentially assistive devices, the program I mentioned earlier that connects employers to qualified job seekers, and quite often programs that allow us to prepare people for the workplace. When kids go through the school system they may have been overprotected, or they may have an unrealistic expectation of what competitive employment might be. That requires employment preparation services, life skills training, and that type of thing.

    I can tell you right now the three things that are required for a blind person to work. Number one is competence on adaptive equipment. Number two is appropriate education. And number three is good travel skills. If they have those three things, they'll work. But in order to acquire those three things, we need assistance to provide that type of program.

    And we need flexibility. Perhaps I could just quickly comment that the Opportunities Fund is the most innovative, flexible employment program for persons with disabilities ever provided by the Canadian government. We applaud it and encourage the finance committee to recommend its continuation. It's allowed for individual requirements, which has been enormously useful.

»  (1700)  

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you. I think both of you are good examples--you are quite independent and function quite well--and are good spokesmen for your foundation.

    I think you mentioned, Ms. Patten, that you have difficulty disbursing 4.5% of resources for the grants and gifts, I guess in facing the difficult economy. But if I understood you, the foundations basically want to assist, want to disburse as many gifts as possible for useful purposes. So I find that difficult; I mean, 4.5% is not a very big percentage.

    I sit on a board for a foundation, and I can't quite understand why that has become a difficulty for you. Can you comment?

    Ms. Monica Patten: Thank you for that question. It allows me to elaborate a little bit.

    The 4.5% that is required to be given for charitable purposes, for charitable activities, of course, comes from the investment earnings. If the market is not performing and there is no investment return at that level, it requires the foundation then to consider other ways of making disbursements, of putting money into the community.

    For established foundations—and in this country, we have some very large foundations that have $500 million, for example—they will have a reserve. It is not as challenging for them, although it will be if the markets continue to perform the way they have recently. Anyway, the larger foundations have a reserve that they can draw on. But the smaller foundations do not have that reserve, so they have to find 4.5% to put into their community from their capital.

    That means a couple of things. First, it means breaking the trust with the donor, because the donor has given this money to be held permanently by the community foundation—hence my comment about how this challenges donor relations quite significantly. Encroaching on capital is not allowed until a certain period of time has elapsed, so there are issues around meeting the requirements of preserving the capital. There are issues around the relationship with the donor, the trust with the donor.

    The final issue—and quite frankly, it's a significant issue—is that foundations have their own expenses. To be a solid, good, high-performance foundation, you incur some expenses for your own administration. Those costs also come from your investment earnings, so they have quite a considerable whammy. The first obligation of the foundations is clearly to put money into their communities and do what the donors want and what the community foundation has been set up to do. But when the market does not return 4.5%, they have some very tough decisions to make.

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Can you tell me roughly what yearly percentage your foundation has put in when the economy has been quite good in the past?

    Ms. Monica Patten: What percentage has been put out? It varies according to the market, of course, and it would be absolutely true to say that much more than 4.5% has been put out in good years.

    One of the challenges we face—and I've been reflecting on this a little bit in terms of some of the questions this afternoon—is that the data is very hard to get. In fact, there is no long-term data on disbursement issues. It's one of the issues that we have with the Department of Finance, quite frankly, because if anybody has that data in this country, it's within the Department of Finance.

    One study that has been done—and to the best of my knowledge, there has only been one of any significance—happens to be of a pension fund. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund has very clearly demonstrated that if you take the long-term view, if you look over a period of time of 10, 12, or 14 years, you will find that the up years have in fact been balanced out by the down years, or vice versa, however you want to put it. In fact, it has therefore been very difficult for foundations to meet that disbursement requirement and take care of their own operational needs.

    So collecting information is a real challenge.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: I have just one brief question for Ms. Sylvester.

    Let's go back to the advocacy, to the 10%. The Minister of CCRA and I were both looking into that. Again, though, I think we want you to use 90% of your foundation for your group's purpose. You find that the 10% is too small, but I think the rationale is quite clear. We want you to have certain boundaries for spending, and then you can use 90% for your main goal, your main purpose.

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: I'd like to clarify something. We want to use 100% of our time for our charitable purposes. We are charities. We work in the public good. We're not talking about doing anything but our charitable purposes. What we would like, though, is to have the ability to determine what is the most efficient way to use our resources. Many of our donors have been talking to us about wanting to see us move beyond just putting on band-aids or treating symptoms, and to dealing with long-term solutions. In many cases, that addresses the advocacy issue.

    The other thing is that we don't know what 10% is. We want real clarification of what it is that we cannot do. We think the line is very clear. We should not be engaged in partisan politics.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Pacetti for five minutes, and then Mr. Jaffer.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have a couple of quick questions, more towards orientation. Madam Sylvester, the voluntary sector you represent, does it include everybody who's under the non-profit umbrella or is it an organization that is separate? You say you represent more than 1.3 million people.

    Ms. Shauna Sylvester: I am here as the representative of the Voluntary Sector Forum. We have our chair as well, Monica Patten, and Megan Williams, who is also a members of the forum. The Voluntary Sector Forum was started originally as the Voluntary Sector Roundtable. It was made up of the major organizations that are involved within the voluntary sector. That's 180,000 non-profit organizations. We have various ways of organizing ourselves; federated bodies is one of them. The Voluntary Sector Roundtable was a collection of those federated bodies. It has moved, with the help of the Government of Canada, to create the voluntary sector initiative, which was really a democratization of that process across the country. The Voluntary Sector Forum is the group of people who have been given the work of the voluntary sector initiative.

    I may ask if Monica or Megan has anything to offer.

    Ms. Monica Patten: The forum has come together as a group of individuals from across the country who basically reflect the make-up of the voluntary sector. It's a remarkable group of people who have gathered, as Shauna has said, to continue to have oversight of the voluntary sector's work, which is part of the initiative we have described to you. We have created the forum for the purpose of oversight and ways to continue to build, strengthen, and engage the sector. We do not see the forum as it is presently constituted as a permanent body. Part of the task of the Voluntary Sector Forum is to work amongst ourselves to see whether there is some kind of permanent oversight or structure that will have some ability to collect the voices--and there will always be many voices--in the voluntary sector, to reflect and represent the broad interests of the voluntary sector.

    So this is a group that has been gathered, as Shauna has said, to take on those particular roles, and we would like to be able to say to you that all 180,000 voluntary sector organizations in this country know about us and are part of us. I would not be honest if I said that. Part of our challenge is to continue to build that group of organizations that feel they are part of the voluntary sector and whose voice is part of the work of the forum.

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: My next question is for Mr. Butcher. Of course, we males have to create a job for ourselves, so I have to give you a question. I see here that you represent only English libraries. Is there a French equivalent?

    Mr. Don Butcher: Yes, we have a sister organization,

[Translation]

    The Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation.

[English]

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Do you work in conjunction with them?

    Mr. Don Butcher: Yes, very much so. We collaborate, partner on certain initiatives, and cooperate wherever possible. Librarians have a culture of partnership and cooperation, so it's actually quite easy. We do, of course, have French speakers within our membership.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I can't speak for outside, but in the province of Quebec there are bilingual sectors, though the majority of the libraries are French. Do you actually put in English materials? Is that taken care of from a library point of view? How does that work?

    Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien (Member, Canadian Library Association): The collection policy is determined by the library administration. In the case of Quebec, that would be the library staff. In other provinces there are library boards who provide advice to the staff as well. The collection policy is an individual library's decision.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: So it's done on a library-by-library basis.

    Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien: Or by regional policy. In Quebec there are regional public library systems, and there would be a collaboration amongst the libraries. There is a great deal of resource sharing, of course. The books travel, thanks to the book rate, which is a wonderful program, and we hope CDs and multi-media will soon travel under the book rate too.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: My last question is for Ms. Pearson. You don't qualify for the capital gains for the publicly traded securities, but other charities do.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: Donors of securities to private foundations don't get the same tax treatment. They get an incentive, but it's a reduced incentive.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: They just get it as a strict donation but not the tax-free portion.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: No. It's the capital gains on the gift that is taxed, and there is a reduction of that capital gains tax owing. It's a substantial reduction in the case of donations to public foundations. It's much less in the case of donations to private ones.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: How many charities would fall under your category? Is it just private foundations?

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: That's right. We represent 70 private foundations, but there are something like 1,400 private family foundations active in Canada.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I don't mean to be too forward, but let's say you're given the exemption. How long will it take before you ask to be fully exempt?

»  (1715)  

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: Right now I'm just hoping for--

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: That might be an unfair question, but that's what I'm seeing here. After we give the 100%, then people will ask for charitable donations to have the same qualifications as political contributions. Where do we stop? Maybe it's an unfair question, but I'd like to hear what you think.

    Ms. Hilary Pearson: Right now we're arguing for the same treatment that has already been given to donors to public foundations. We're making an argument to the Department of Finance in particular that we think the government has already made the decision to provide a tax incentive to donors of shares to charities, and all we're suggesting is that this be fully extended to private foundations.

    The issue of tax incentives in general for donations is always under consideration by the minister. The Government of Canada has said for some years that it believes in tax incentives for charitable giving. I think that's in line with governments in many other countries that have used tax incentives to get more individual dollars into the community. So I think it's a well-established policy principle.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Jaffer, one question, and, Mr. Paquette, if you wish, one question also.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thanks, Madam Chair.

    I also didn't want to leave Mr. Butcher out, seeing that he has only been on the job for three days. We didn't want to let him get off too easy here.

    I have a question for clarification. I don't know if you have this information. What percentage of library funding comes from private sources? Do you know what the ratio is?

    Mr. Don Butcher: I'm afraid I have no idea. Leacy probably wouldn't either.

    Ms. Leacy O'Callaghan-O'Brien: No. We have not carried out that kind of research to date. Library foundations are a relatively new phenomenon in the country. I expect we'll start to gather data as more private sector contributions occur.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer: As I mentioned, earlier this week I was in Edmonton for the kickoff of Alberta Library Week. The Ismaili Muslim community made a donation of $10,000 to the library foundation there. So I was just curious if there were some figures on how much is coming in from private sources versus public ones. But if that information is not available, that's fine.

    Mr. Don Butcher: Sorry, we don't have that information. Certainly, one of our issues at the CLA level is that public libraries are just one of our constituents. We also represent college and university libraries, which may benefit from donations to a university. But it would be difficult to measure that.

    Mr. Rahim Jaffer: This was made strictly to the public library.

    Thanks.

    The Chair: You wanted to add to that, Ms. Cutler. Go ahead.

    Ms. Fran Cutler: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    If I could speak for the library of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we are the only library for the blind in a G-8 country that does not have sustained government funding. All of our funding comes from corporate and individual donations and occasional project funding for $10,000 there and $100,000 there, but not the kind of $50 million up that the Library of Congress provides for the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in the United States.

    As Mr. Butcher mentioned, we are partners with the Canadian Library Association to provide service for those who are not directly served by the CNIB library, which serves those who are blind, vision impaired, and deaf and blind. But for those with perceptual disabilities or who cannot hold print, they must go to the public libraries, and only a minority of those libraries have become partners with the library of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

    So there is an example of at least one that does not get very much in the way of public funding.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have a very brief question. I would like the representatives of the Canadian Conference of the Arts to tell me why they are recommending that the Department of Finance carry out a study on self-employed workers, instead of the Department of Labour, whose responsibility this should be, in my opinion. This is your recommendation 2: “That the Department of Finance take the lead in directing a full and comprehensive study into self-employment in today's Canadian labour market...”.

    I fully agree with your recommendation that a mechanism should be found to extend the protection of employment insurance coverage to self-employed workers, but it seems to me that this study of the working conditions of self-employed workers should be done by the Department of Labour.

»  (1720)  

[English]

    Ms. Philippa Borgal (Associate Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts): Forgive me if I answer in English.

    We have in fact made this request of Human Resources Development Canada as well, but the whole issue of how self-employed individuals are taxed is surely something that is for the finance department. I think both departments bear some responsibility for doing a study. When we made the request of HRDC, they bounced it back to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, saying that they would love to see a standing committee carry out a study.

    At the moment, then, nobody is taking any responsibility. We're simply pointing out that something has to be done, and that perhaps it could be a shared responsibility between the two departments.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I think all of us have had the opportunity to listen to your answers to our questions. We certainly have your briefs and we appreciate the input you've given us today. We have a lot of witnesses to hear, and every single testimony before us helps us make up our deliberations. It's a big task, but you've done your share of the work for us. So thank you very much.

    To my colleagues, I just got an e-mail regarding the Board of Internal Economy, and our travel money has been approved. Our own budget has been approved, so everything is a go for next week in Halifax.

    I remind you that there are meetings on Monday afternoon. That is not normal for this committee, but it will happen next week. Some of the witnesses next week are still slotting in their times. The original notices will be going out today, but there may be some amendments to those.

    We'll see you at 3:30 p.m. on Monday.

    Thank you, everyone.

    We are adjourned.