Finance Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[Terry Anne Boyles]

Because we believe so strongly that the existing mechanisms for accountability and transparency are within the power of CRA, putting this in the bill amounts to duplication. The bill is therefore flawed and would be costly in duplicating administration for all charities.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

You're talking about the transparency through CRA but not to the public.

[Terry Anne Boyles]

In our case, because of the nature of colleges, we are transparent to the public. We're public institutions under provincial-territorial administration.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The CRA doesn't deal with names. They don't deal with positions or titles. It's just the number of people in a range. It's not very transparent, and Canadians have a right to know. There's a right to know under the Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Davidson, do you want a brief comment on this?

[Paul Davidson]

You asked whether the remaining parts of the legislation are flawed. I think there are recommendations to address some of the concerns and make them more effective, and that's what the weight of the briefs this afternoon have spoken to. You're suggesting that every organization that receives public subsidy or public benefit should have all their salaries declared? That's pretty far-reaching if that's your policy intent.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

If it means a tax benefit, yes is the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Of the presentations we've heard, I like the one that Mr. Bizzo made as an individual. He talked about the importance of transparency.

The bill obviously responds to concerns of ordinary people who, through their contributions, want to provide some kind of aid based on the mission of such and such an organization. Mr. Bizzo cited the example of someone who gave an organization $50 a month: it took 600 contributions to pay the highest paid employee's salary of $350,000. In that situation, it's hard to justify donations. So the need for transparency is significant.

The problem is complicated for organizations such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and hospitals because you have positions other than charity-related positions; you have other mandates to carry out.

I'll cite the example of the hospitals. I'm from Quebec. In Laval, there is the Hôpital de la Cité-de-la-Santé, within which there is the Fondation de la Cité-de-la-Santé, which conducts a funding campaign and for which people are called upon to make donations. So it's the foundation that is concerned, not the hospital as a whole. The distinction obviously has to be drawn. The pay scale for hospital employees is determined by the provincial government of each province.

Mr. Pineau mentioned that donations represent only 1% of his organization's revenue. Based on the information available to you, to clearly distinguish the "charity" part, would it be possible to have a Canadian Conference of the Arts foundation that would raise funds for the purposes for which the act would apply? In each case, I would like to know your views on the subject. Is it possible to separate the charity or donation function from the overall mission you represent?

[Alain Pineau]

Theoretically, that would be possible. However, in 65 years, that has never been a priority for an organization such as ours. I don't think that's where we want to go looking for most of our revenue.

Instead we would look to membership, which is not a donation, but rather people who support us. These are mainly individuals. We have member organizations of the conference and individuals. Donations essentially come from individuals. We have perhaps 200 individual members who support the work we do on behalf of the arts and culture sector.

For us, I don't believe that's worth the trouble.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Ms. Boyles, at the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, would it simplify your activities if an act applied concerning transparency and if you had a separate foundation to which the act would apply?

[Terry Anne Boyles]

In our case, although our association is a registered charity we're actually here speaking on behalf of the colleges, institutes, and CÉGEPs in the country. It's more a matter of principle and goals for each of those institutions whether they choose to have a foundation or not, because the autonomous boards of governors appointed by the provincial governments are trying to achieve the mission of the institutions in the way that's most effective, efficient, open, and transparent. So it wouldn't make a fundamental difference.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Closson, perhaps you could respond with regard to hospitals.

[Tom Closson]

In Ontario most hospitals have foundations, but not all hospitals. The reason hospitals are charitable organizations is to receive money from their foundations. The amount they receive is probably in the order of 5% of their total revenues, and it may be used for part of a person's salary. For example, if a medical researcher is a principal investigator, it may go toward paying part of their salary. So it's very complicated. You can't really split the money the hospital gets from its foundation to be charitable from money coming from other sources of funding, such as government, parking revenues, or private and semi-private accommodation fees that people pay.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If a distinction can't be drawn in view of the fact that, in the bill we are examining, it's disclosure of the identities of employees who earn more than $100,000... So, considering that people are able to use their judgment, if the general manager of a hospital has that kind of salary, people would understand. However, if it's a person who raises funds whose salary is disclosed, it's important that people judge. This enables people to judge on the basis of the disclosure of the identity of each person and of that person's salary.

[Tom Closson]

I'm here speaking on behalf of the Ontario Hospital Association. As I indicated, we're in favour of disclosure of salaries over $100,000. We have no problem with that.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

All right, thank you.

I believe time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. That's fine.

We'll go to Mr. Menzies, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

As you will see, this is very much a non-partisan debate here. I think it's very good and very important. There's actually a private member's motion coming forward fairly soon that will deal a little further...and I thought I heard some recommendations that we should study this further. I think that is a good idea.

We've heard a lot about transparency and accountability. I'm pretty sure we have everyone on the record saying those things are important. If anyone thinks they aren't, please correct me now.

Thank you. I enjoyed the silence.

Mr. Szabo made the comment that we're dealing with donors' money. That is very critical, but there are contributions from taxpayers as well.

I have one quick question. The United States deals with this differently than we do. Do any of the representatives here have affiliates in the United States who could shed some light on what we might do better? Do the Americans treat it differently from what we're proposing in here? We're assuming these amendments will go forward. Is there anyone who has a comment about that?

[Paul Davidson]

Mr. Menzies, I know Imagine Canada is to speak in the next panel, and they may have more information about international comparisons that would be useful.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Okay, good.

Then to Mr. Pineau, you referred to the T-3010 disclosures. What exactly is disclosed on that?

Also, we've heard from many people that CRA has the tools it needs. Is it just not using them now? Because there were some arguments that we don't need this legislation. Are the tools available, and if so, why did we have a wreck, the reason Ms. Guarnieri brought this forward? We had a serious problem, and that's the reason for her bringing this forward. If we have the tools, what failed us?

[Alain Pineau]

Well, I gave a list of what we are obliged to disclose in terms of the contact information, the details about directors, detailed revenue and expenditure information, description of charitable programs, if we have some, political activities, and transfers to qualified organizations. This is all information that we make available through the filling of that form, which I don't do myself, but it is the information that is required.

What may be problematic, as I mentioned in my presentation, is that this is not readily accessible to the general public, or not in a way that would inform them in the spirit of what this act proposes. That's why the suggestion we made was that those rules and regulations, which can be adapted to be even more transparent than they are, because somebody acknowledged that they could be improved on, would be the mechanism to go through, from our perspective.

Perhaps Revenue Canada should be invited to present this information in a format that would be more accessible to the general public, because my understanding is that currently it's not very accessible. I've never gone there to check on anybody, including us, but my understanding is that it is available but not accessible.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

So how many of these costs or wages for all of the organizations that you represent are available on your website? If I want to give money to Red Cross or to the universities or colleges, can I go on a website and find out what percentage of the funds you raise go to administration, what percentage goes to you? A quick yes or no, please.

[Alan Dean]

Sure you can, yes.

[Sharon Dymond]

Yes, and I can say for World Vision that's true as well.