Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes.
My second question is would you just want the minister perhaps to have discretion on releasing information as to name, location, registration number, and not have discretion for revealing the people who are receiving the $100,000 or more of compensation?
4 p.m.
Director General, Charities Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
The difficulty is that normally in these kinds of circumstances we do an assessment of the impacts from a privacy perspective, and that would include the risk to security in terms of revealing names and/or salaries. It is hard for me to say that there would be no instances when we wouldn't prefer to protect the name of an individual, let's say, as being someone who worked in a women's shelter or in another type of organization. I am ill-prepared at this point, without having done the full analysis, to categorically say that we would be okay with a “shall” just for the compensation.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Okay, I appreciate your comments. I'm hoping that when the decision is made it is based on consultation and it's not done on a one-off and that we can go about respecting the CRA's decision, but I understand it sometimes becomes a political matter.
I don't know if there are any other speakers, Mr. Chair.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate it.
Based on the testimony we had, I was on the same page as Mr. Pacetti, in that I thought some of the risks people were telling us about were, to put it mildly, a stretch. But based on the information you've provided us today, which I really appreciate, at this moment I'm not prepared to support the amendment. If we leave some discretion for the minister, whether it's a male or a female, it sounds like there is a process that is involved, and it is only used on occasion, when it would be very specific to their safety.
You made a very good point. I'm a volunteer at a Halton women's shelter, and we do not let people know who is there and who works there. You made a good point, so I'm not prepared to support the amendment at this time.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I both support Mr. Pacetti's amendment and am sensitive to the lady's argument. I believe there are similar tax rules in Quebec. These rules make the release compulsory, except under special and real circumstances, as you said. The minister is obligated to release the information. Otherwise, he must justify the decision not to do so. I often heard this suggestion being made in Quebec. It limits the exception. However, I do not know what this would do here nor what language we could use to achieve this.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
I have a list now.
I have Ms. Guarnieri, please.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Thank you for indulging me, since I'm not a member of this committee.
I just have a quick question. If the word “shall” was limited strictly to compensation, would that certainly satisfy the members who have concerns about some of the names?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That would be up to the members. The only issue, and the legislative clerk may want to comment, is if it changes “the Minister may make” in paragraph (b), then it applies to everything under it. So “annual compensation” in subparagraph (b)(ii) would have to be taken out and then separately accorded the “shall”. You'd need a separate amendment. You'd have to actually amend this. You'd have to amend that and then amend the....
I don't know if that answers your question or not.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It would be a little bit involved, I guess is the answer.
I have Mr. Brison.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
If a charitable organization wanted to protect the information around its physical address, couldn't it use a mailing address of a post office box, as an example? For instance, in the example of a shelter or some other potentially vulnerable issue around physical address, would that not satisfy of course Revenue Canada in terms of the address but also protect the shelter in terms of its privacy of its physical location?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Charities Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
It could potentially, and I believe some do that already, but it's a bit of a mix at the moment. I know that there are some for whom we do not publish the actual address.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I prefer the “shall” wording, because the moment you say “may”, you subject the minister to potentially a lot of pressure from a range of groups with reasons why they feel their disclosure ought not occur. I think “shall” makes more sense. In terms of physical location, we've just determined that a charitable organization can in fact protect the privacy around its physical location simply by using a mailing address. So I think that ought not cause anyone concern.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I support the principle of this amendment. It says in French: "(b) le ministre met à la disposition du", and in English the word "shall" is used. Actually, we discuss this here because we are dealing with charities and because public funds are involved. We are discussing this bill for reasons of transparency.
I think it would be too easy to make claims in order to get an exemption of one sort or another, for example regarding the location, the name or the salary of people. I believe that above all else a government must be as transparent as possible. This would avoid temptation to grant exceptions for which it might be chastised later on. My preference is to use "shall". This is the whole reasoning behind this bill. I do not like the idea of leaving it to the minister's discretion.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Charities Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
I would just like to note that this does not happen very often. Actually, the vast majority of the information we have on charities and that can be released are available on our website. Very seldom does my office receive requests to withhold information.
December 8th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
I have a couple of questions for the officials.
Is it true the U.S. requires disclosures even for shelters?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Charities Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairperson, I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Tax shelters?