Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You seem to have a preconceived notion of how much somebody should be making in the non-profit sector. Am I reading this right or wrong?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
It would have been my preference to have had some kind of range by which people could not take excessive profits out of the charities.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
But who is going to determine what excessive is?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
I've eliminated all of that. It's not an issue now with my bill. My bill asks only one question of this committee: whose salary needs to be hidden?
Basically, my bill is about transparency.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
My bill asks nothing more than what is required in the United States and what a publicly traded company asks.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Shareholders have a right to that information, and the argument I would make is that donors have that right too.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.
Monsieur Carrier, s'il vous plaît, pour sept minutes.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
You are telling us that the bill was amended, and that the amendments have been summarized in a report. Has this report been officially distributed, or are we getting it today? I have just learned about the amendments to your bill.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to the amendments before the committee. In my statement, I underscored the reasons why I am presenting these amendments.
I would like the committee to study the issue of transparency as it applies to charities.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Yes, I understand. I am not a legal expert. Are your amendments legally acceptable? It seems to me that you are proposing a major change to your initial bill. Does your bill still stand as amended?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
That's a good question.
The amendments were drafted by the legislative committee that drafts private members' bills. I am assured that they are in order.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
If I take for granted that these amendments have been accepted, I support them, on principle, because they address many issues we had previously. We understood the bill's good intentions, but the bill may have penalized smaller organizations, since it might be a delicate matter to reveal the salaries of their employees, as well as extremely high salaries which might be paid out. I think that the $100,000 cap solves that problem.
Indeed, the smaller organizations which I felt would have been affected by the bill are not structured the same way, that is, they do not have enough time to analyze a bill and present their arguments before the committee. That is why I thought they were being significantly penalized.
I also noted that you removed the obligation to reveal the names of the salary earners. You are asking that only the five highest salaries be revealed. What is the main reason for not wanting to match names with salaries? Registered charities include the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, and it is well known that the conductor earns more than $1 million within that organization.
If we only reveal a few salaries, it would be important to link each salary with the attendant position, so that everyone has a good grasp of the situation before making a judgment. Did you take this into account when you were thinking the matter through?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
That is very important. Transparency is a fundamental value, we have to reveal the salaries paid. It is important to know whether a surgeon earns a big salary, or whether a fundraiser earns just as much. It's very different. It is also important for donors to know how their money is being spent.
I want to point out that the crisis I referred to earlier, which happened at the Oshawa Hospital, would never have occurred if there had been transparency. Reporters should not have to conduct a major investigation. I think that everyone wins when there is transparency. Donors should have the same rights as American donors, or the same rights as shareholders of a publicly-listed company.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
However, if we do not match names with salaries, that will diminish transparency, since the five highest earners in an organization are not necessarily known. You cannot make a judgment and know whether it is founded or not. You referred to a surgeon or an orchestra conductor, but if you only indicate who the top five earners are who make over $100,000, people might ask questions. You might identify three people, that would be logical, but what about the fourth and fifth? There would remain many unanswered questions.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
That's possible, but what I am saying is that a donor has the right to know how his or her money is being spent, that's all. That's the donor's right.
I am just wondering why an American donor has more rights than a Canadian one.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
No, you did not understand. In the amendments you have introduced, you are asking that only the highest salaries be published, those over $100,000, without revealing who is making those salaries. You are only asking for the salaries to be divulged.