THE SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE CHARITABLE SECTOR
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 28, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector met this day at 6:30 p.m. to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome you to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector.
I’m Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, chairman of the committee. I’d like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia sitting in for Senator Ratna Omidvar.
Senator R. Black: Robert Black, Ontario.
Senator Duffy: Michael Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Today the committee will continue its study to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, non-profit organizations, foundations and other similar groups, and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.
For this meeting, we will focus on the charitable giving. As our witnesses, we welcome Ms. Pamela Best, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada and Patric Fournier-Savard, Survey Manager and Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada and Martin Turcotte, Senior Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada. And by video conference from Vancouver is Shachi Kurl, Executive Director, Angus Reid Institute.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I would invite the witnesses to make their presentations. I would also like to remind them, as per instructions previously given, that their presentations should not exceed 10 minutes in length. Following the presentations a question and answer session will take place. Senators will be given 5 minutes to ask questions before the chair recognizes another senator. There will be as many rounds of questioning as time will allow. Senators do not have to feel required to ask all of their questions at once.
During the question and answer session, I would ask the senators to be succinct and to the point when asking their questions. I would ask the witnesses do the same when answering.
We will now like to begin with Mr. Turcotte.
[Translation]
Martin Turcotte, Senior Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to participate in the committee’s study. On May 7, our colleagues in the National Economic Accounts Division provided the committee with an overview of the charitable and non-profit sector’s economic contribution in Canada. This evening, we will be looking at things from a different perspective, focusing on the financial contributions of Canadians to organizations in the sector, in other words, monetary donations.
I will begin by briefly outlining the two main sources of charitable donation data available to Statistics Canada. Then, I will share some basic statistics on donors and donation amounts. I will describe what the donor profile looks like and how it has evolved in recent years. I will also discuss the significance of primary donors. Lastly, I will outline the main types of organizations Canadians donate to. As you will see, certain types of organizations receive larger amounts than others. The reports and infographic that were handed out contain a lot more information that I won’t have time to cover in my presentation.
Before I get into the survey results, I should mention that Statistics Canada puts out two documents on charitable giving by individuals. The first is compiled using administrative data, in other words, tax data contained in the T1 Family File. Every year, Statistics Canada compiles and disseminates information on the total charitable donation amounts reported by Canadian taxpayers on their income tax returns. Those amounts capture only donations made to charitable and approved organizations that issued an official receipt for tax purposes.
The other source of data is the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, conducted under the General Social Survey program. Both Imagine Canada and Volunteer Canada are represented on the survey steering committee. Approximately 20,000 Canadians are surveyed, and they provide information on all of their charitable giving during the year, large and small donations alike — not just those for which they received a tax receipt, but also those for which they received no tax receipt. This evening, I will be sharing the results of that survey.
As we speak, the most recent results we have available are for 2013. We can therefore compare them to the results for 2010, 2007 and 2004. The data for 2018, however, will be collected in the fall and will be available soon.
Let us now turn to the results. In 2013, some 24 million Canadians aged 15 years and older gave money to a charitable or non-profit organization, so more than four out of five Canadians. Over the past decade, the proportion of Canadians having donated money has slightly declined. In 2013, the proportion of Canadians who donated was 82 per cent, versus 84 per cent in 2010 and 85 per cent in 2004. However, the total amount of donations made by individuals rose. In 2013, Canadians donated a total of $12.8 billion, a 14-per-cent increase over 2010. An increase in the average donation amount was also noted. In 2013, the average annual amount per donor was $531, compared with $470 in 2010. Although the proportion of donors dropped slightly, donation amounts followed an upward trend from 2004 to 2013.
One of the benefits of the Canada Survey on Giving is that we are able to build a socio-economic and demographic profile of Canadian donors. Not surprisingly, Canadians who are more likely to make a donation and to give more on average have higher incomes, are married and working, tend to be religiously active and have a higher level of education.
Given society’s changing demographics, an important and well-documented link is that between age and donations. As you can see from the infographic, in 2013, people aged 75 and over gave an average of $726, some $300 more than those in the 35-to-44 age group. Given that older Canadians donate more on average, the amount of their contributions is higher than their share of the total population. It is interesting to note that, as a result of population aging, the share of total donations made by older Canadians is rising fairly quickly. Their proportion of the total donation amount — $12.8 billion — is on the rise. Therefore, the share of the total donation amount contributed by those 55 years and older went from 39 per cent in 2004 to 47 per cent in 2013. In short, even though they represent 35 per cent of all donors, those 55 years and older account for approximately half of all donations to charitable and non-profit organizations.
I don’t mean to bombard you with statistics, but the important thing to take away is this. Only a sliver of the 24 million people who make charitable donations play a vital role for the sector. In our lingo, we call them “primary donors.” They are defined as the 10 per cent of donors who give the most money during the year. In 2013, that meant individuals who gave $1,150 or more to charitable organizations. This group is important because it accounts for such a large share of the total amount donated. Even though these people represent just 10 per cent of all donors, their contributions make up 66 per cent, or two-thirds, of the total amount of donations made during the year.
What is interesting is that, in recent years, the contribution of primary donors has been increasing. Between 2010 and 2013, they were responsible for most of the increase in the total donations made.
Demographically speaking, what distinguishes primary donors is that they are older and, as I said earlier, they tend to be religiously active. Here are some numbers. In 2013, the proportion of primary donors who were religiously active on a weekly basis was 54 per cent, versus just 14 per cent for the rest of donors.
That brings me to my next point, the types of organizations that receive the most money. They are tied to the age profile and religious involvement of primary donors. As you can see from the middle chart, on the infographic I handed out, religious organizations receive the most. In 2013, they received $5.2 billion, or 41 per cent of all money donated by individuals.
Then, taking a look at the other types of organizations, we see that health organizations come in second, followed by social service organizations, which took in $1.6 billion in 2013.
Finally, we can see that several types of organizations receive less than $200 million per year, including those in the arts and culture, sports and recreation and community development and housing sectors.
[English]
As I previously mentioned, new data on charitable giving will be collected this fall. Statistics Canada is working closely with key stakeholders and primary data users to develop this survey. This partnership is essential to maintaining the relevance and usefulness of the data.
The landscape of both fundraising and charitable giving is changing with social media and increased Internet outreach. We have seen this recently with the success of grassroots fundraising such as GoFundMe campaigns.
In 2018, we are measuring ways in which the giving patterns of Canadians are changing, not only in terms of the amount they are giving, but also in the ways our behaviour is shaped by the use of these new social platforms.
I wish to thank you. On behalf of my colleagues, Pamela Best and Patric Fournier-Savard, we are pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Shachi Kurl, Executive Director, Angus Reid Institute: Hello everyone, I am Shachi Kurl, Executive Director, Angus Reid Institute.
[Translation]
The Angus Reid Institute is a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation that works to better understand issues and trends affecting the economy, society, governance, philanthropy, public administration, and domestic and foreign policy in Canada and across its population.
[English]
Personally, I am also a member of the boards of the Canadian Cancer Society and of Imagine Canada, which is an organization that has done very thorough and credible work on the subject of giving in Canada; quite well steeped from a couple of different perspectives on this issue.
One study in particular done in partnership with the Rideau Hall Foundation found a fascinating trend. It compared what giving looked like by generation and gender about 30 years ago, a generation and a half ago, relative to what we see today. I would invite you to picture, if you will, in the 1980s a view of giving as a straight column, where proportionate to gender and proportionate to age demographics, people across age demographics were giving about the same amount relative to their percentage of the population.
Today, instead of a straight column, what we see is something of a palm tree that leans a bit further in one direction. At the top of that tree, as my fellow presenter mentioned, we see older Canadians. What we note is they are giving more, not just because there are more of them in an aging population, but they are giving more relative to their percentage of the population.
You’ve heard about our mandate. We wanted to further explore the why behind these changes in behaviour, particularly the why behind the reasons younger people don’t appear to be giving, even though they may have the means and income to be giving. What is driving this gap between intention and action?
The result was a four-part study between ourselves and CHIMP, which is the Charitable Impact Foundation. I must acknowledge the leadership of John Bromley here in British Columbia and the CHIMP Foundation.
Our research found a lack of financial means is a major factor in the reasons many young Canadians in particular and many Canadians don’t give.
However, skepticism and doubt about where their dollars are going and whether those dollars are being spent effectively also looms large in the decision to give or not.
Further, we do find that a group of younger, relatively wealthy and more educated Canadians make up a crucial segment of the population that has the potential to morph into going from one-off donors who are responding to prompts on things like GoFundMe or fundraisers to ongoing intentional donors if they felt they had more confidence in the charitable sector, felt more connected to the causes they care most about and were being approached differently.
You’ve already heard a lot of statistics. There are a few I would reiterate.
First, we find that while three quarters of Canadians have donated to at least one charitable cause over the last two years, they are much more likely to again have given in response to a prompt from an organization rather than of their own initiative.
What is driving that? We find conversations in childhood appear to have a massive impact on giving behaviour. If you’re somebody who was exposed to concepts of charity and altruism by your parents when you were younger, you’re much more likely to be categorized as what we could call a super donor, while people who are non-donors — for the most part, they don’t give — among them two thirds say they were not exposed to these conversations and experiences as youngsters.
Among the 3 in 10 Canadians — about a third — who say they should be doing more for charity, half again say financial concerns are the sole barrier but we also see significant numbers, again, expressing doubt as to where their dollars may be going and asking questions about the effectiveness of charities.
As we have heard, I can reiterate and support the finding that those who support religious-based or faith-based causes are much more likely to be ongoing donors than one-off donors, which is something that sets them apart from other charitable groups.
In general, we find there are four segments of the population and four mindsets when it comes to their giving behaviour. You have the non-donors, who make up just over 10 per cent of the population. As their name implies, they don’t really give. If they’re giving, it’s probably less than $100 over the course of a year. The vast majority, more than 7 in 10, say they’re not really giving to charity at all and there are some attitudinal factors that drive that disinclination to give.
You have casual donors who are giving a bit, probably about $250 a year, to charity in total. They are generally prompted. They are being asked for money. They’re giving a little bit.
Prompted donors are people who, again, are being asked rather than actively giving of their own accord because there is a cause or something they believe very profoundly in that they want to be actively giving to. What sets them apart from casual donors is that they’re giving more. It may be a friend who pops up on Facebook that says, “I’m doing the Ride to Conquer Cancer,” or “I’m doing the March of Dimes,” or supporting another cause, perhaps the MS Society. “Will you help me out?” These are people who want to help friends. There is a reaction or a response from the outside, something external that’s prompting them, and they are giving in more generous amounts.
Then you have the super donors. Again, these people tend to be older. They are increasingly female and people who are giving unprompted. Their giving behaviour is baked into how they budget. They generally support at least two causes per year in an ongoing way and they are significantly more likely to say they are supporting a given cause at their own initiative: it’s their idea, they have gone out and sought an organization they wish to support in an active way.
The other significant finding from our research really explored that younger, more affluent group I mentioned at the beginning. We call them “would give mores.” They are standing on the sidelines. They could be more actively involved in charitable giving, and there are three statements that the majority answer yes to. They say they would give more money to charity if they felt more confident about charitable giving. That speaks to transparency and understanding where their dollars are going. They would give more to charity if they could find the perfect cause that really spoke to or inspired them. And they say they would give more if they “were approached in the right way.”
These statements and the group that really comes away saying yes to these things in a majority manner offers a window into a different sort of giving gap. It’s not just about the amounts or a feeling the amount people are giving is sufficient or insufficient by their own judgment, but really on the ability to see oneself donating more if the circumstances changed.
As I mentioned, these “would give mores” tend to largely skew younger. They are more educated and wealthier than the general population. They are far less likely to cite financial concerns as the main thing preventing them from giving; rather, again, they are looking for guidance and greater confidence in the process of giving as well as a desire to really get up to speed on the causes they might give to if they had a greater sense of knowledge.
How does the charitable community harness this intent and this goodwill that isn’t necessarily coming through in action? What’s missing? I will leave you with just a couple of conclusions. From my perspective, there are a couple of things really driving some of this lack of confidence and hesitation, particularly among younger givers, who are not giving at the same rate of older generations.
One is fragmentation of charities. In the age of social media, these platforms are enabling anyone to start up a charity. That leads to duplication and a real fragmentation. That can also lead to confusion when there are dozens of organizations and charities or funds being set up to largely support some of the same causes. People don’t necessarily know where or how to best place their dollars.
These same factors have an impact on the prompted nature of giving. If giving is a muscle, I would say Canadians, over time, have allowed those robust giving muscles to turn a little bit into limp noodles instead of regularly flexing and exercising them in an intentional way. People are choosing to give because someone has poked them and asked them to do it. They want to be good folks. They want to help out.
Charities themselves can no longer assume the public will automatically come to or follow them. They have exacerbated the problem by going after larger corporate donations without maintaining smaller communities of supporters and by focusing on campaigns such as planned giving and major gifts, which, again, are more targeted at older donors and older segments of the population.
This is obviously very important in the short term. If you’re a charity, you’ve got to chase the dollars where they exist. I would ask what are the long-term consequences of also not engaging younger Canadians as they come into more financial security and greater ability to give.
We see this with partnerships such as giving at the till: “Would you like to donate a dollar or two from your purchase today,” at Christmas time, on Black Friday or on a different day to give to charity? Sure, everybody does that. Are they giving intentionally?
I will leave you with those thoughts. This has been a very thorough exercise and it has generated a very thorough body of work. If anyone is looking for more information on the four parts of these issues, I would invite them to visit our website at AngusReid.org. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
We’ll now go to questions.
Senator Woo: Thank you, witnesses. The question can be for either of the witnesses. It has to do with the profile of older donors disproportionately giving to charities but, more specifically, those who have passed away.
My question is to ask if you have data on estate giving and how it’s captured in your data collection and whether you can tell us if there are some patterns and trends in estate giving. We know the aging population and — how shall I put it — the impending demise of the boomer generation, which got very rich over the years and which, of course, continues to be seen as a source of inequality in society and a generational difference. How is that playing out in charitable giving?
[Translation]
Patric Fournier-Savard, Survey Manager and Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: Thank you. That’s a very good question. In terms of survey questions, respondents are in fact asked whether they have made such donations. I should point out that, terminology-wise, the question was more or less understood by respondents.
The 2018 survey endeavours to correct that; it will be carried out on the ground beginning in September. We have some data, but I don’t have the information with me today. Suffice it to say, though, the topic is addressed in the survey and has been for a number of years. It is possible to see trends in that regard as well. If you’d like us to follow up with the information, we would be happy to do so.
[English]
Senator Woo: Could we make a request for that data to be provided to the committee?
The Chair: That’s a good point. We will follow up and get that through the clerk.
Senator Woo: I have another question that has to do with data on political giving, which I’m sure you collect, as well, in the same data time series. You may not have the information at your fingertips. I’m curious to know if the trends in charitable giving follow trends in giving to political parties. Maybe it’s something you can also send to us at another time. I’m wondering if there are correlations that we can draw.
[Translation]
Mr. Fournier-Savard: Could you be a bit more specific? Are you asking about the correlation between giving to political parties and another phenomenon?
[English]
Senator Woo: You described a certain pattern of giving in terms of the charitable sector, both age profile as well as the relative weight of different age categories. You talked about the declining share of giving but the increase in the absolute dollar value between 2010 and 2013. I wonder if similar trends apply in the case of giving to political parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Fournier-Savard: For that sector specifically.
However, all the donations captured by the survey are attached to the name of an organization. The MS Society and Run for Cancer, among others, were mentioned earlier. Those answers are then coded into broad categories. As the middle chart on the infographic shows, one of the organization categories is “law, advocacy and politics,” but it’s important to understand that the political component represents a small share of that 0.1 figure, which I believe is equivalent to $100 million. When endeavouring to look more closely, we note that the numbers are quite small. All that to say your question relates to a very small amount, and even though we try to break it down, the highly variable nature of the data is a hindrance.
[English]
Mr. Turcotte: As you see, it is a relatively small amount compared to other types of organizations. In terms of trends over time, there has been no noticeable trend for that type of organization. The data shows an important increase for international organizations. Among all the types of organizations you see here, between 2004 and 2013, there’s been a 200 per cent increase for international organizations.
Ms. Kurl: I would also add that health is really big for people donating. You could make the argument, senator, that everything is political, and many politicians and people in public discourse do. I know you’re asking more about big-P political donations. More than half of Canadians report having given to either disease research treatment or prevention, followed by poverty relief. To my colleague’s point, international aid is increasingly big. Notably, animal welfare and issues of humane treatment of animals is big, followed by religious and faith charities.
Advocacy issues and other issues that dance more toward the lines of policy and politics are much further down the list in terms of what we have found.
The Chair: If I could clarify, I think Senator Woo’s question was directed at not the political in the motivation of — I’m giving my donation to the cancer society. He’s talking about giving donations to a political party. I think that’s what motivated the question.
Senator Woo: In part because there is a different regime under the Income Tax Act that provides different incentives from the incentives provided for giving to other charities.
The Chair: The committee has heard that question before, so I appreciate that.
Ms. Kurl, do you have anything further to add?
Ms. Kurl: I can add something in terms of the motivations of giving. I know that particularly on Parliament Hill and in the corridors among policymakers, tax and tax structure is often discussed. We tend to look a little bit more at the attitudes and the drivers of why people give.
The tax advantage is a piece, but it’s not the whole piece. The bigger piece is around issues people are personally connected to. That is why we tend to see higher levels of donations and giving toward things like health charities and other charities where people can either feel a tangible connection because they themselves have suffered from something, they know somebody who is dealing with a health issue, they’re dealing with trying to get a family out of poverty or wanting to help overseas because they’ve returned from travel and wish to do something about it.
Tax advantages for those who are perhaps super givers — those who are very knowledgeable givers and who are giving larger amounts — may definitely want to structure their charitable giving in such a way to maximize tax advantages. When we see so many Canadians are one-off, more prompted, casual donors, they’re not thinking of tax implications. They’re thinking about how connected they feel to a particular issue. That is the driver for why they give.
Senator Martin: Thank you all of you for your presentations. As I’m looking at this charitable giving in Canada diagram, which is very helpful, I was surprised the giving under politics is so little compared to other areas; I actually expected it to be more. I am curious about these numbers. This increase of giving to international organizations, I was wondering if you would give some examples of the types of international organizations Canadians are giving to overseas.
We’re also realizing the non-profit sector, which also receives donations from Canadians — none of that would be reflected in these statistics, correct? This is capturing the giving to charities, not to non-profits?
Mr. Fournier-Savard: It’s to both non-profit and charities. The survey itself doesn’t make that distinction just because we’ve observed in qualitative tests that our typical respondents don’t necessarily make the difference between regulations and legislation --
[Translation]
— as far as the legal definition of a non-profit organization versus that of a charitable organization is concerned.
[English]
Yes, they do include both.
Senator Martin: Another area of concern we have been looking at is foreign money that comes into Canada. How is that captured? This is just giving in Canada by Canadians. You don’t have anything that captures what may be received by Canadian charities or non-profits?
Mr. Turcotte: No.
The Chair: That would come from Revenue Canada data rather than Statistics Canada data.
Senator Martin: I was surprised by some of these numbers.
Ms. Kurl, in terms of the full body of work from which you were sharing some interesting and helpful information, have charities and non-profits had a chance to hear from your institute on your findings, especially in regards to that fifth group of would-be donors?
That’s the area I’m sure they would be very much interested in trying to raise more revenue for their charities.
Ms. Kurl: Thank you, senator, for that interesting question. Some charitable organizations and charities have been open and receptive to hearing this data and information. There are others for whom some of these findings may seem a little counter to what they expect to hear or a little bit more controversial. I recognize and understand it.
When you are a charitable organization focused on meeting mission and your mandate, it really comes down to dollars. Many charitable organizations will tend to fall back on looking for the donor dollars where they can find them: Estate giving, planned giving, chasing corporate donations, which are much bigger dollar amounts, major gifts and really focusing on larger philanthropy donations.
Therefore, this is some information I think the charitable sector as a whole would benefit from. We are working on it sort of one charity at a time as we are able to share it with them. I would add all of the data is publicly available for any organization to access from our website. It’s there to digest and discuss. We welcome the opportunity to more widely share the information as we are able.
The Chair: I would have thought a charity would be anxious to learn what the new trends are. If you’re not willing to change, then you’re going to go out of business pretty soon.
Ms. Kurl: It’s an astute and interesting thought, senator.
The Chair: That’s me, astute and interesting.
Senator R. Black: The survey that’s going out in September, is that the General Social Survey?
Mr. Turcotte: Yes.
Senator R. Black: How often does it go out?
Mr. Fournier-Savard: The General Social Survey usually goes out each year with a different team each year. For the GVP, Giving, Volunteering and Participating, the cycle is five years.
Pamela Best, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: I think that you did a very good job. The survey is within the context of the broader general social survey.
Senator R. Black: In 2013 the federal government introduced the First-Time Donor's Super Credit which supplemented the value of charitable donations by I think it was 25 per cent on donations made by first-time donors. I think the program expired at the end of 2017 tax year. Do you know how that was received? Do you have any data from your surveys about how it encouraged first-time donors and donations?
Mr. Fournier-Savard: A short answer is no. There are some nuances. We do have some questions on the impact or potential impact of having these credits offered and if it would change their decision.
We do not attach this data to the actual T1 file where you could see where a first-time donor did use the credit. We have partial content but not attached to the reality of the tax files.
Senator R. Black: We don’t know whether the impact was great or significant?
Mr. Fournier-Savard: I believe that question should be to our colleagues from the income division who use and analyze these tax files, and schedule 9 in particular where the donations are described.
GVP could speak only about the potential attitudinal impact of such a credit even if it did not exist.
Senator R. Black: Any comments from Ms. Kurl?
Ms. Kurl: We did not ask about this tax credit in our surveying. I would welcome an opportunity to do a little bit more digging and follow up on. I am hesitant to speculate, but I would suggest that probably a significant number of Canadians may not have heard about the credit, let alone utilized it, but that is worth asking about and measuring.
Mr. Turcotte: What I can add is we’re asking responding questions about why they are giving. We didn’t specify as super donor or anything but we’ve been asking that question. Compared to other reasons for giving, receiving a credit on your income taxes appears relatively low, and especially low among the younger population. Only 16 per cent of people aged 15 to 34 said yes. If you compare to reasons like you were affected by someone you know, that would be 70 per cent.
Senator R. Black: I have one final question. In my home community, I know two groups that get together, men and women, throw in $100 every quarter and research where that money will go. Then that group of 100 people or 50 people give their money to those organizations that might be appropriate and worthwhile.
Are you seeing more of where groups of people come together and maybe do some other research and then give based on that research? Help me out here.
[Translation]
Mr. Fournier-Savard: I can answer that in two parts. The first part is no, the survey does not examine whether donations were made collectively, as a group, or individually. The only piece of information that the survey provides in that regard is whether the donation was made jointly with a partner. That is more or less as far as we can go in terms of organizations.
However, in terms of how people make their donation decisions, the 2013 survey asked respondents where they searched for information on the organization they donated to and whether they donated because of someone in their circle, a friend or a co-worker. Those questions will also appear in the 2018 survey.
Yes, then, the survey does provide some information on that. Unfortunately, I don’t have it handy, but, again, I would be glad to get back to the committee with that. However, no, we aren’t able to say whether people are making group donations, which, I agree, would be very interesting to know. The survey does, nevertheless, include questions on how people decide to make a donation, especially as regards larger donations.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Anything, Ms. Kurl?
Ms. Kurl: I cannot speak specifically to the question about group donations. That is part of a larger area where we see younger people more motivated to engage and participate. For example, they are much more likely to say they have volunteered or participated in a community volunteering project than they are to say they have donated actual dollars.
As there is, perhaps, opportunity to translate that sense of community support into something more tangible in terms of financial support, there may be a way forward there. It’s one that, again, we would need to understand some baseline measurement before we draw any conclusions.
Senator Duffy: Thank you to our witnesses. A quick question for our friends from Statistics Canada. You’re going into the field with one of your excellent surveys. All of Canada depends on them and we know how thorough and good they are. When do we get to see the results approximately? One year?
Mr. Fournier-Savard: Thank you for the question. We are in the field this fall.
The analytical file and initial release are planned for December 2019.
Senator Duffy: After our report. However, maybe we’ll get you back for an advance tip-off.
The Chair: There may be phase two.
Senator Duffy: Ms. Kurl, I had a number of questions for you.
You talk about prompted giving and needing a poke. Then we look at the dramatic increase, 200 per cent to $1.3 billion. It’s $1,300 million given by Canadians to international organizations. Is the poke things like hurricanes in Haiti, floods we see elsewhere? Is the media playing a role in poking donors, who would not be your average donor, prompted by the pictures and suffering they see? Is that a big part of what is new in the last few years?
Ms. Kurl: Thank you for that question, senator. I don’t know necessarily how new it is. I would use the example in one case around the terrible tragedy around the tsunami and earthquakes of December 2004. We know, for example, both worldwide and in Canada, how much that prompted people to give. It happened over Christmas. People felt a tremendous sense of connection at a time when they were in a very reflective mood.
At the same time, we also see, to your point, how natural disasters tangibly affecting people even on the home front can be big prompts for people to give. I look at not just the news media but social media — Twitter, Facebook, and other social media — around the time of the Fort McMurray fires. People were able to witness how their neighbours, friends, relatives, cousin of cousins, dudes they went to university with were at risk of losing their homes and their livelihoods. I am sure my colleagues at the Red Cross would be able to tell you about the massive response they received.
Whether it’s something happening overseas or at home domestically, I hate to call it this, but event-driven charity is a real thing. There are many layers in terms of disseminating information and poking people to give.
Senator Duffy: That presents a problem if one of your standard charities doesn't have some dramatic event, some of that prompted giving would perhaps go to those groups that are helping out on the news and not so much to others. I don’t know how we get around that. I think if I can read your research correctly, that’s one of the things affecting young people.
One final question before I forget here. You talked about cynicism about charities. Can you tell us a little more about that?
Ms. Kurl: Sure. What we find is not necessarily that people are of the belief that charities are doing nefarious things with their dollars. It is more a sense of uncertainty and a larger ambivalence or cynicism as to where the money is going. Okay. I’ve written this cheque and given this money. What happened to it? How do I track it? What is the story of where those dollars finally ended up?
In some cases it is difficult to quantify your measure, reportage, about what consists of the effectiveness of giving. Some charities have been under the microscope and saying they’re not spending their dollars effectively. They might say they need more marketing to bring donations in which is a legitimate cost, and others that are more established are able to rely on costs or those that deal more in the natural disaster space. Again, it’s a little bit easier to talk about it.
I think what we see, particularly among those who are standing on the sidelines, is not just a desire for more transparency but more forward communication from organizations about that transparency. Are they likely to go and read an annual report and try to figure it out on their own? Possibly not. Would they possibly benefit from more forward communication from those organizations saying here is how we spent your dollars and here is the transparency? That is possible.
The Chair: One way of getting around the highs and lows is if the charities build a good annual giving campaign that relies on multi-year commitments.
We’re almost out of time for this panel. I have a couple of questions.
In this information we were provided, it talks about the average annual donation in 2013 being $531. I want to know if that’s up or down.
The second part on this chart, it says $5.3 billion to religion. Now, is that up or down? I’m particularly interested because religion has started to take a declining interest, particularly by younger Canadians. Is that offset by larger donations by older Canadians?
Mr. Turcotte: For the first question, that $531, yes, it’s higher. It’s higher than in 2010.
The Chair: By how much?
Senator R. Black: You said $407.
The Chair: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that. Thank you.
Mr. Turcotte: In terms of religion, since we started to collect this data, religion has always been the type of organization collecting more money. In terms of trends, there has been no significant fluctuation in recent years.
Senator Omidvar: I apologize for being late. It was a minor thing like clause by clause of Bill C-45. I’m happy to be here. I’m sorry if I’m going to ask you questions you may have already answered.
I wanted to ask you about a recommendation, Mr. Turcotte and others from Imagine Canada suggested the data on giving should be annual as opposed to what you do right now. I understand the last iteration was based on the year 2013 and was published by the end of 2014. The satellite account of non-profit institutions and volunteering was only last produced in 2009 for the year 2007. Is this correct?
Mr. Turcotte: As I mentioned in my presentation, there are two sources of data for charitable donations published by Statistics Canada. The one I paid most attention to today is the results from that survey. As you mentioned it was 2013. Previously it was every three years. Now the survey is part of the General Social Survey, so it’s going to be every five years.
The other source of data is based on tax data, so administrative data. These numbers are already published every year.
Ms. Best: I’d like to address timeliness of the data. Thank you very much for your question. I think when gathering social statistics, it’s always a very delicate balance of trying to have judicious use of the resources afforded us as a statistical agency and understanding the burden we impose upon the respondents to our surveys who are very gracious in giving us their time.
We are undertaking an examination of the General Social Survey. One of the ways we’re looking at is what is the frequency of data we need to gather? Are there some social trends that change more quickly than others? At present we’re on a five-year cycle. We recognize that is maybe sufficient to monitor trends over time. Perhaps there are other data points we need to look at in a more punctual fashion.
Senator Omidvar: It would be possible, if the political and public will were there, to do it annually so that we can get a handle on annual giving trends in such an important subsector of the economy?
Ms. Best: I would add if we saw those trends fluctuating and felt there was a need to be able to monitor that, because when we look at data such as labour force data, we know those trends are changing month by month and it’s important to impose that burden on respondents. If we find other trends don’t change such as highest level of education doesn’t change annually, those are the kinds of social questions we ask when we’re looking at the periodicity of gathering data.
Senator Omidvar: The notes before me say your study has found there are fewer donors than before, the vast majority of Canadians are donating to charities and non-profits but this number is declining slightly.
How much do you think this is a federal problem, tax incentives, regulations, et cetera, and how much is this in fact a marketing problem of the charities?
Ms. Kurl: Thank you, senator. From my perspective, it’s more about a gap in intentionality through the generations when it comes to the why and the drive and the prompt for the giving. Why are people giving or why are they not giving?
What we see is yes, the majority of Canadians are giving. Older Canadians are giving more. I would suggest it’s because that habit of giving has been baked in for a longer period more societally throughout their lives. Whether they were involved with or informed by church groups, social service clubs, if they were Boy Scouts or Brownies or Girl Guides, there was always an aspect of helping and of service and indeed of putting some dollars behind that intention to help and serve.
We are now increasingly seeing, particularly among millennials, a desire to roll up their sleeves, participate in a volunteering project but not necessarily equating the importance of dollars to action in terms of service and in terms of outcomes and results. That is the mindset we find among younger donors.
Is it a marketing problem? I think the charitable sector can be finding more effective ways to communicate, that dollars count as much as hours and service.
Is it a tax incentive problem? My colleague talked about respondents aged 15 to 34, whether or not tax incentive was a big reason they give. Look, how many 15-year-olds do you know who file tax returns? Frankly, for the youngest Canadians, they have not accumulated enough wealth to be thinking about deductions at that stage. They’re still able to take advantage of tax incentives for them, aimed at them at a lower income level.
I don’t think this is so much of a financial planning issue in how tax incentive play into that. This is more of an issue societally about how do we strengthen and flex the giving and monetary giving muscle in the next generations of Canadians?
The Chair: I’m going to take the chair’s prerogative and ask the last question. It relates exactly to what you just mentioned, Ms. Kurl. In certain educational systems across the country, there are mandatory responsibilities for students to take part in volunteering and fundraising as part of their education.
Have you attempted to track what that does in later years? Obviously not the year after they graduate from high school, but the following years that you can tell that someone was educated in the Ontario system or the Newfoundland and Labrador system. Does that training at the high school level have a positive effect on what they do later on?
Ms. Kurl: It’s an excellent question, senator. Certainly our mandate to continue studying these issues over time will, no doubt, prompt another round, if not in this year then certainly in 2019.
There you go. That is an issue we could very easily look at, focusing on younger donors and younger Canadians writ large. Did they look at that requirement to volunteer as a bridge to instilling a sensibility around the importance of supporting charitable works, not just through volunteering but through donations? Or do they look at it more as a have to do? I’m doing this because I need to get a high school credit. Once it’s done, it’s done and I haven’t thought about it again.
It’s an excellent question and one that I would be quite excited to actually pursue.
Ms. Best: This is a bit of a primer to get you to come back next week.
Thank you very much for this question because we are going to be here next week speaking about volunteering and some of the analysis we hope to bring is looking at that cohort analysis of volunteers, those aged 15 to 19.
The Chair: Stay tuned, folks, for the next visit by Ms. Best.
Ladies and gentlemen from Stats Can and Ms. Kurl from the Angus Reid Institute, thank you very much, it’s been very informative. Some people will say numbers are boring. Your numbers were not boring. They were very informative and they will help with the deliberations of the committee.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Honourable senators, we will continue with our new witnesses. With us here via video conference from Kamloops, British Columbia, is Dr. Laura Lamb, Associate Professor, School of Business and Economics, Thompson Rivers University. Here in the room with us is Kayla Smith, Student, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor. Welcome to both of you.
We’re going to start with Dr. Lamb. As you know, we’ve given everyone indication we’d like no more than 10 minutes, if possible. Then we’ll go to questions and we’ll try get as many rounds of questioning in as possible.
Dr. Lamb, the floor is yours.
Laura Lamb, Associate Professor, School of Business and Economics, Thompson Rivers University, as an individual: A research partner, Dr. Hossain,and I have published about five papers related to charitable giving in Canada over the last 10 years. We specifically hone in on the effectiveness of the tax credit.
The paper I was asked to comment on was one of our more recently published papers where we were looking at effectiveness of the tax credit system, the current system on encouraging larger donations. We also wanted to look at the effectiveness of the tax credit system compared to other factors that also motivate people in terms of the decision to make a charitable donation and the amount of the charitable donation.
I’ll summarize our results. I’ll keep this fairly brief and then open it up to questions.
We used data from the 2010 Statistics Canada survey, the Canadian survey on giving, volunteering and participating with a target population of Canadians, aged over 15, from all provinces across the country. The sample size is around 14,000. It’s a fairly significant sample.
Our main results are that the tax credit as a reason for donating is statistically significant. Those who state the tax incentive is important to them are more likely to make a larger annual donation than those who don’t.
Consistently and in sync with other research, the tax credit does always seem to come up as a significant variable. We found that other demographic variables such as income, higher education and wealth, as proxy by age, also have a significant impact on the amount of charitable donations. In fact, the strength of the effect tends to be larger for those demographic variables than they do the tax credit.
I’ll give a bit more detail. Another aspect we looked at in this survey was the two tiers of the tax credit system — a lower tax credit for donations up to $200, and then a higher tax credit for donations over $200. We found for those who state the tax credit is important for donations, they are more likely to give over $200 a year. It indicates that upper tier has a more significant effect on giving than the lower tier tax credit.
In terms of impact, for households with incomes of $40,000 or greater, an increase in income has a larger impact on the amount of their total annual donations. That is significant. If you look at those with household incomes of $100,000 or more, they are about 30 per cent more likely to make a larger donation, greater than $200, compared to those with lower incomes. The income effect is quite significant and our statistical results suggest it plays a larger role in determining the amount people donate compared to the tax incentive.
The other effect we looked at was education, specifically post-secondary education. For Canadians with post-secondary education, just the fact they have post-secondary education indicates a larger donation base and likelihood they will donate more. It plays an important role in the amount of donations.
The third demographic factor is wealth. That appears to have a larger effect on the tax credit. The variable we used to proxy wealth is age. It shows those 65 plus are about 30 per cent more likely to make donations, total donations over $500 a year.
In terms of the impact, it appears that wealth, income and post-secondary, higher education play very significant roles in the decision to make a donation and then also how much to donate. The tax credit does play a part. The marginal effect of the part seems to be smaller.
Other significant variables — and these have been found in other research and in research we’ve done — are variables such as volunteer status. People who volunteer their time also tend to give more money. They tend to have a complementary relationship. Females tend to donate more. Those with school-aged children also tend to give more. Those who participate in religious organizations and religious attendance also do as well. These variables are found to be significant in the past.
Regardless of how much the tax credit is examined, most research does show it to be a statistically significant factor influencing both the decision to donate and the amount to donate. There are a number of other factors that play a bigger role.
In a couple of other papers we’ve done, which is not in this current paper, we have broken down donations by sector.
When you broke out religious donations compared to all others, if you call them religious donations and secular donations, there seem to be differences there as well. In past research, we found the tax credit plays a much smaller role in donations to religious organizations as opposed to donations to secular organizations.
In terms of this most recent research, we feel our results are fairly conservative because they’re based on people answering the question about their motives and reasons for giving. People are presented five or six different choices. There’s a concept in survey research called social desirability response bias. That’s the idea people like to give answers to make themselves look good. People are more likely to not mention the tax credit and more likely to mention reasons such as it being a cause they believe in, they have compassion toward those in need or they want to make a contribution to those in the community. They are all very good, sound reasons. There tends to be a survey bias where people are more likely to choose those reasons rather than state the tax credit.
I’ll leave that there, and then can you ask any questions.
The Chair: We’ll now go to Kayla Smith for her presentation.
Kayla Smith, Student, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, as an individual: Hello, senators. Thank you for having me here today. I am here to share my findings and personal experiences in the charitable sector as a millennial.
It has been said millennials do not give to charity. I am of the opinion that such is not true. I would like to share a two-streamed approach I wrote about in a blog for Imagine Canada last summer called, “The Why and How of Millennial Giving.” I believe this will help us to better understand and increase millennial engagement within the charitable sector.
The first part is a values-based approach. It focuses on the why. The second part highlights practical tools that focus on how to strengthen the non-profit-giving relationship with millennials.
My research stems from the Millennial Impact Project, a U.S.-based organization, as well as 30 Years of Giving in Canada, a report by Imagine Canada.
The first approach looks at three values: authentic inspiration, transparency and sharing impact.
For authentic inspiration, I believe millennials value meaningful connections, and they are more likely to give when moved by an authentic story. We are a compassionate and empathetic generation, largely driven by a belief in a cause rather than, sometimes, by a specific organization. When non-profits are genuine about their cause, that can provoke a sincere desire for millennials to get involved.
The second is transparency. It is true millennials do not necessarily have as much to give at this point in our lives, given tuition fees, student debt and so forth. This is why it’s critical for millennials to see and trace where their money is going and how they’re able to make tangible contributions. Building trust is very important to millennials, because that turn millennial earning power into future giving.
Last is the sharing impact. millennials can be a results-driven generation. This is why it’s important to see the evidence of our impact. Technology has allowed millennials to widely and rapidly share impact stories on various social media platforms, which sparks a domino effect in cause engagement.
To share a personal experience, last summer, when I went on an international mission trip, not only was I passionate to donate my financial resources to the host organization, but also my time, energy and service. I was authentically inspired by the cause and able to trace and share the impact of my donation.
For the second part, when we look at fundraising tools, I would highlight four giving mediums for your consideration. In the blog I spoke about, there’s mobile payment services. Just about every millennial has a smartphone or two. We believe mobile friendly is very millennial-friendly because it enables convenient and efficient giving.
The second consideration is online and social giving. Millennials definitely rely on social media, social websites, search engines and instant access to technology. The report from Imagine Canada our generation leads in participatory engagement and initiatives supported online.
The third consideration is monthly giving. This one ranks a bit lower in strategy. However, it does produce stability by allowing smaller gifts that are more recurring.
The fourth looks at birthdays, holidays and special events. More recently, Millennials have been asking for donations in lieu of gifts for birthdays, weddings, special events. This can be a new strategy we can continue to implement.
I want to leave four recommendations. The first is alternative giving. It’s important to leverage the professional skills and expertise of millennials to facilitate alternative giving. We need to remember giving is not only financial. Millennials in particular can give beyond monetarily. Again, considering time, energy and resources, Millennials are the most educated generation. We have a lot of expertise we can use.
The second recommendation is towards investment. It’s important to invest in the youth non-profit sector to advance deeper involvement, networking and ongoing leadership.
The third recommendation is inspiration. That involves highlighting the causes, movements and social issues a given organization supports.
The last recommendation is trust and transparency in technology. When we capitalize on technology, we can engage millennials in a very tangible way so they can see how their contributions are having an impact, even when it’s remotely. They can see it and even do that in schools from a very young age.
In closing, I wanted to challenge the committee and the Senate to embrace change for new opportunities. Millennials are changing the way we go about traditional giving; be flexible, adaptable and innovative to facilitate opportunities for new and different ways to give; and continue to engage in dialogues like this with other Millennials to understand more about why and how they give. Thank you.
The Chair: Dr. Lamb and Ms. Smith, thank you very much. You both presented thought-provoking presentations. We’re going to get to the question-and-answer session.
I want to ask Ms. Smith a question. I’ve been following this up with most witnesses we have who might have some information. In certain jurisdictions in high school, volunteering and participating in fundraising is mandatory to graduate.
In association with your study and with your colleagues at the University of Windsor — has that yielded what I think people are hoping for, which is better-educated young people who understand the work of charities and are engaged in both volunteering and giving?
Ms. Smith: Thank you for your question, Senator Mercer. That’s a good start. When I was in high school, it was required to volunteer for a minimum of 40 hours in order to graduate. I found students who didn’t necessarily take it seriously and would just try to complete the hours. It didn’t necessarily invoke a desire to give back or care for the charitable sector.
In post-secondary education, it’s not necessary or mandated.
That is one way we can get students to start thinking about volunteering, but from an even earlier stage, such as elementary school. It would be important to get students at an early, tender age looking a lot more about volunteering and giving back in a way that is not just as a class per se but looks at the individual and helps them develop a care for the charitable sector.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question for both our wonderful witnesses. Thank you so much.
Professor Lamb, I have a question for you. I’ll make a statement and try and get a response from you.
The trend towards increasing charitable giving incentives, such as the capital gains exemption on gifts of property, et cetera, whilst they may generate more donations by donors, typically most of the donations seem to be concentrated in a certain sector of society. Most of the donations go to universities, hospitals, museums, et cetera.
You have suggested in an article a fairly provocative idea that tax credits should be tailored to society’s preferences and needs by setting unique tax credit rates for the different sectors. I wonder if you would comment. Is this a view that you still hold? This is from 2012, the article I’m citing.
Ms. Lamb: A couple of studies we’ve done show donations to different sectors respond differently to the tax credits. Based on that behaviour we’re seeing in Canadian society, it seems reasonable that different tax credits be set for different types of giving.
In terms of practicality, it makes the system more complicated and it’s probably very subjective. I don’t know if it’s politically desirable but in the economics of it, the statistical analysis does suggest the tax credits have a greater effect on some sectors than others.
Let's consider religious giving as an example. A couple of studies we have done have shown the tax credit plays an extremely small role in giving to religious organizations as compared to giving to social service organizations or international organizations or even health research organizations.
There is a different responsiveness that suggests information could be used as a tool to try to encourage donations in certain areas.
The Chair: Could I clarify one thing before I come back to Senator Omidvar?
The use of the word “tax credit” can be a little confusing in the context of charities. A donation to a charity is a tax deduction as opposed to a credit. A donation to a political party is a tax credit. It’s actually a deduction off of the taxes owed, where deduction works its way through the system and doesn’t end up as beneficial as a tax credit you get for a political donation.
I just want to ask you, Dr. Lamb, the context in which you use the word “credit.”
Ms. Lamb: In our income tax system, the incentive for charitable giving is given as a tax credit rather than a deduction. In other words, a tax deduction in our income tax system is a benefit that’s based on your marginal income tax rate, but that’s not how the tax incentive is set up. The tax incentive is set up based on a per cent credit that varies by province. There are two different levels within every province. In the accounting world, it’s considered a credit.
The Chair: Back to you, Senator Omidvar. I apologize for interrupting.
Senator Omidvar: That’s okay. It’s good to get our definitions straight.
Thank you, Ms. Smith, for your interest in a sector that I hope engages more young minds like yours.
Can you confirm to me — I think I heard you say this — that young people don’t actually care about getting a tax receipt? It’s the cause that motivates them. Do they therefore care whether their cause is tied to an institution and whether that institution or organization, small or big as it may be, is a charity or not-for-profit or nothing?
Ms. Smith: Thank you for your question. Just to clarify, I did not suggest that young people do not necessarily care about getting tax receipts or tax credits. What I would like to put forward is millennials are more passionate about causes and social issues that sometimes transcend institutions or organizations and charities and non-profits.
For example, there may be multiple organizations, but the actual cause or the movement is what will appeal to millennials more particularly, as a generation, than others.
I believe that sometimes there is a difference; young people do look at charities versus non-profits and receiving tax receipts as well. I would not suggest they do not.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator R. Black: Thank you for your testimony. I asked this question earlier and I would just like to get your thoughts.
The first one is the idea of first-time donor super credits which supplement the value of charitable donations by 25 per cent on donations made by first-time donors. That program expired at the end of the 2017 tax year.
Do you have any thoughts or comments on the value and impact that might have had, both from you, Dr. Lamb, and Ms. Smith?
Ms. Lamb: I haven’t seen any data on it. I really don’t know how effective the program was. It’s difficult to comment. I don’t know what type of impact it had.
When the policy change was first announced, I didn’t suspect it would have a very significant difference, but like I say, I haven’t seen any data on it. I really can’t comment.
Ms. Smith: Similarly, I don’t have any data that I can accurately report.
Senator R. Black: Okay. Thank you.
My second question centres around or focuses on donor groups. In my home community, I’m aware of two groups in the area that get together once a quarter and bring a cheque. It’s a group of 50 to 100 people who bring that to our meeting and have people come in and talk about their non-for profit or charitable organization. Then that group of individuals divvies up the money. It could be as much as $10,000 being given in an evening. I call them donor groups. I know of two in my community.
Are you seeing this trend, or is it just in my community? Again, that is for both of you.
Ms. Lamb: Again, I haven’t seen statistics on that. That’s interesting. It ties into other aspects I’ve seen that are significant in terms of charitable giving. It relates to the concept of social capital and networking. When people do things and are organized in groups, there’s sharing and building of momentum. I think some similar research suggests it does have a positive effect.
For example, adults who are involved in organizations — and they don’t even have to be non-profit organizations — who serve on committees, are involved in group participation of different family organizations and people who volunteer do tend to have a higher rate of volunteering. That suggests people who network socially tend to give more.
That even goes back further and picks up on something that Kayla had talked about earlier.
My research partner and I did a previous paper on the effect of youth being involved in activities, and our research found that youth, if they were involved in student government or in sports or Boys and Girls Clubs tended to participate more in charitable giving as adults. I think that whole social aspect and club asset is important.
The donor group idea, like I mentioned, I haven’t seen any statistics on that. I think it’s really interesting and worth further examination.
Ms. Smith: Based on the research I have done, I don’t necessarily have statistics on donor groups. I have looked at the different ways in which young people tend to give more to religious institutions. What we see is more of rallying around faith groups, in particular to donor groups, as well as Dr. Lamb did point out schools and clubs. You see young people with student governments and extracurricular activities raising their volunteerism in that way.
The Chair: I should tell you, Senator Black, in my community there have been donor groups like that except there was one group that put an interesting wrinkle to it. Some people came together and collected the money and then challenged four schools, not the charity organizations but four schools to make a pitch for the money for the cause they chose. I actually was there when they the award was made. It was a wonderful presentation. It was very emotional and it was inspirational to see the work of these young people. These were quite young students. I would say they were at the junior high school level. That was another wrinkle.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you both for your presentations. My question is for Ms. Smith. I think your insights on millennials and what causes their passion or what you’re passionate about. The priorities that you have and those insights were very helpful.
I was curious about the role of media and how issues are talked about in the news or traditional media. My daughter, who doesn’t look at the television per se, I was curious, when you talk about online giving and social media, are you getting your information from places in the digital world very different from just the regular television medium we are watching? Can you go into a little bit of detail about how you will get the kind of information that may inspire you to act on certain issues?
Ms. Smith: As millennials, I believe we are getting our information in nontraditional ways, and social media particularly. Instead of looking at the newspaper or the six o’clock news on the television, the news ends up being on Twitter and Instagram and Facebook sometimes even faster than my family members may find out on television. That is a way millennials are engaging in meaningful dialogue online about things relevant and happening today. Still taking in the news, but on a digital platform. I may get the notification sent to my phone but it’s the same thing my parents may be watching on TV.
It is a wider range. I don’t mean to generalize because it is a large category and some people still do focus on television per se. I know many young people today are leaning towards social media and gaining their information there.
Senator Martin: You outlined millennial giving and various methods in which you would do that. Would you say the involvement of millennials and particularly millennials in leadership roles with charities and non-profit organizations, is the way in which you’re generating funds and/or supporting causes? Would you say it’s evolving? How do we bring the tradition and what you’re doing closer together or make sure we are able to work and make an impact together?
Ms. Smith: It’s about bridging gaps, because millennials are leaning towards the technology. When charitable organizations and non-profits make their websites more tech friendly and implement mobile payment services, for example, on their website so young people can give digitally while others can still mail in their donation. Also, engaging young people through social media because that is sometimes the number one way we’re going to even come across the charity initiative instead of traditional door-to-door knocking, for example.
It’s bridging gaps and I believe that charitable organizations and non-profits can be equipped to do and make these changes even by taking on millennials into their organizations to help implement that change.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Duffy: Thank you to both of our witnesses.
Dr. Lamb, based on your research and the fact you’re a member of the staff of the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University, we have a growing high-tech field here in the Ottawa area. People who work in charities in this area tell me they often run into newly very wealthy people in the high-tech field who say I don’t give to charity, I create jobs. They don’t have the same culture of giving as old money seems to have and which the statistics seem to show the older people are, the larger amount of money they’re likely to give.
Among your students in the business school, is that a common view that their job is to go out and build companies and wealth and leave it up to the employees, whether or not they get involved and donate?
Ms. Lamb: That’s interesting. I’ve done some consulting work for the local United Way here. I’ve seen it happen where you get a fairly good-sized company with a lot of employees and when the United Way Campaign comes out they encourage their employees to donate, but the company itself doesn’t donate so much. There could be something to that.
I think one of the reasons donations are related positively with age is not only age but it has to do with wealth accumulation. Maybe some of the younger entrepreneurs are successful but they’re not at the stage in their life where they’re ready to give if they’re using their money and building on it. I guess we can hope by the time they get to their fifties and sixties that they will change values a bit and want to donate and have business schools named after them and such things.
Senator Duffy: Some of us have had a tap on the shoulder from heart disease and there is nothing like a heart attack to make you appreciate the importance of giving to your local hospital or whoever provides your health care. That’s also a function of age, I think.
Kayla, what about your colleagues? Do they all want to be like you or do some of them say, “I’m too busy building my future, and I’ll look after that later”?
Ms. Smith: I too fall into these traps. When you are a student, it’s a difficult age because you’re trying to focus on your academics as well as extracurricular activities and professional development. Millennials in particular are in a unique space because they know they need to give back in order to sometimes secure their ideal career.
However, we are always pressured with grade-point averages, scholarships and things that require a lot of time.
I would say it varies. A lot of millennials battle between, “How much time do I have,” and, “How much money do I really have to give? I could be working, saving money and putting that towards my obligations.” I have also been there as well.
It’s wonderful when schools create balance so you understand the importance of getting involved in your local communities while still pursuing academics. I have found that to be my experience at Windsor law, where social justice is our focus. We’re not streamlined into just focusing on academics but to also get involved in social justice advocacy.
Senator Duffy: That’s excellent. There were pieces written, maybe 20 years ago now, that predicted intergenerational conflict as we baby boomers got old and went off to the retirement home, and we were counting on your generation to pay the bills for us.
Do you see that now, that part of your generation is saying, “It’s not our job to look after the old folks?” to put it in the vernacular.
Ms. Smith: It’s a complex question. There are layers to that. There is a cultural element there as well. I would not think it would be right to just answer from a perspective of the charitable sector. There are a lot of other factors in terms of wanting their parents to take care of what they need to take care of and then focusing on themselves. There have been claims we tend to be entitled and focus on ourselves. I think there are a lot of other factors we would have to look at to really be able to say one way or the other.
Senator Duffy: Dr. Lamb, do you have anything on that intergenerational conflict, how we’re going to build these bridges? When one looks at the national balance sheet, there is no way this is sustainable.
Ms. Lamb: Two things come to mind. One is the important role of immigration. Canadian fertility rates are low. The dependency ratios, they’re getting high in terms of the number of young people who are going to be paying income taxes and contributing towards CPP relative to those who will be collecting. That’s one aspect.
Another aspect is a lot of literature published recently is about how parents are financially supporting their children longer than they used to. There have been shifts in the dependency ratio in the other sense too. We talk about the late launchers. Part of it may be related to real estate prices or different aspects out there. Those are a couple factors that come to mind.
Senator Duffy: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: We’ve heard some discussion here in committee around the need for someone in Canada, preferably someone who has policy and financial levers at their disposal, to be the champion and ambassador for charities so that more people are aware of the good work charities do.
I wonder if both of you could respond. Would that help?
Ms. Smith: It can help. When being able to associate a particular person with a mandate, we tend to be looking for evidence results. When there is one person who can hold a portfolio, and we can look, analyze and trace data, that can be beneficial and can impact young people to potentially want to be more involved knowing that it is a priority, it is a focus, and it’s not left in a broad sense. It’s something we’re actually focusing on. I would say that it can.
Ms. Lamb: There is a role for that, yes, absolutely, on a couple of levels.
One would be to raise awareness of need. I sometimes think there’s a general perception that the government looks after more than it does, in terms of donations, social services and those types of aspects. I think awareness of need is important.
Another aspect would be to distill myths about the non-profit sector. You hear some people, as an excuse not to give or give more, talk about not being sure the money is going to the right place or too much is spent on administration costs, and it goes towards paying high salaries and that type of thing. I think some good quality factual information out there would benefit.
Also, to start educating children and youth. Rather than focus on just the current adult population, to look at future givers. I think a lot could be done to raise more awareness, to see more giving citizens for the future.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you all for your questions.
Dr. Lamb, thank you for your presentation and participation. We appreciate your time.
Kayla Smith, thank you. You added an awful lot to this conversation. It’s good to see we’re finally being led by young people on this debate. Thank you very much for your time.
(The committee adjourned.)