The innocent ones sometimes pay the price.
I heard the presentations, and I think some of the organizations here are doing a good job. I can't say specifically which ones. I have my own personal opinion. But I think some of the presentations are a little bit disappointing, I have to say, because all we're asking for is some transparency and what we're asking for is some help here. I'm not going to speak for all the members, but my feeling is we're all on board here, and we're going to try to make this a better bill and we need your help. If you don't want to help, we're going to make it a better bill based on what parliamentarians think, and I don't think you want that.
We have disclosure. I understand what you're saying. We have disclosure, but the disclosure is in ranges. We don't want ranges, we want exact amounts. That's been clear.
The T3010B does not allow for details. The CRA officials were here last week. The testimony was public, so you must have read the minutes from that. The T3010B is not appropriate.
Somebody mentioned they want government to decide what is reasonable for salaries. I don't think we want that either. I think we want donors to decide. Organizations are benefiting from government subsidies, directly or indirectly. So we want the donors to decide. CRA does not have the ability to audit all the organizations. I'm not going to tell you what the stats are because it's kind of horrendous.
No one here has said that charities or people working in the charitable sector should not get paid. No one here around the table has said whether you should be getting $1 or $1 million. No one has said that. What we're saying is that we want transparency. The CRA definitely does not have the tools, and in the end that's what we're trying to do.
Somebody spoke about minister discretion, so if somebody could send us a recommendation in the next 24 hours of what they would like to see for the minister to have discretion.... But the last thing you want is for a minister to have to pick and choose which organizations should disclose and which ones should not.
The escalator clause: again, if somebody has wording, I would appreciate that. You could send them through the clerk.
The security issue: we've heard some arguments. I'm not going to get into the details, but you have to explain what the security issues are going to be. Again, provide us with a recommendation that you would be comfortable with.
I have a recommendation that I want to get your opinion on. Albina changed her bill slightly, so we're going to just focus on the executives who receive $100,000. What I would propose is to add—I'll read the whole thing—the name, job title, and annual compensation of the five executives or employees with the highest compensation, provided it exceeds $100,000 annually, of any corporations related to the registered or previously registered charities.
I got this from a Conservative member who was substituting. I have no problem saying I plagiarized it or I'm taking it over. There are some charities that are using registered incorporations, so we'd like to include those.
Does anybody have a problem with that amendment or recommendation?