Finance Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Davidson?

[Paul Davidson]

Yes, the information provided by CRA is not detailed by individual salaries but by groups of salaries and ranges of salaries, and it will provide that information.

I will also say that virtually every university president's salary, for example, is available on their website. So transparency is part of life in the university.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Closson.

[Tom Closson]

Well, as I mentioned, in the hospital sector, all compensation over $100,000 per year is actually posted by the government on their website once a year.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Is that unique to Ontario?

[Tom Closson]

I don't think it's unique to Ontario, but it's not true in every province. That's my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Bizzo.

[Gary Bizzo]

I have some information on the U.S. They use form 990 to the IRS, and it's usually put on the charity's website for everybody to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Boyles.

[Terry Anne Boyles]

Depending on the province.... For example, in Alberta, the government requires the colleges and I believe universities and other public sector institutions to actually publish it right in their annual reports of the institution, which are on the website, and then the over-$100,000 applies in almost every province and territory. And it's public.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Boyles, just to be clear, I heard you say we should defeat this bill in its present form. If it's amended to take the cap out, and with the $100,000 put in there, would that be agreeable to your association?

[Terry Anne Boyles]

Our first priority is that it can be covered under the existing modifications to the CRA modifications. But should the committee decide that you need increased public accountability and transparency, then removal of the cap is the significant factor for us.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Okay.

How much time have I left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Twenty seconds.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I won't take any more time.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Monsieur Mulcair, s'il vous plaît.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me, in turn, to welcome all our guests today. Thank you very much for your contribution.

The NDP would like this bill to be debated in committee. However, if there were no change, I would find it very difficult to recommend it to my caucus colleagues for the simple reason that I consider the maximum threshold of $250,000 completely unrealistic.

However, what we have before us today is distinctly better. I would like to honestly present your concerns to my colleagues when I have the opportunity to do so.

So I'm going to start with you, Ms. Boyles. Although I acknowledge the importance of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, I find it very difficult to understand how you can say—and I am quoting you so that there is no misunderstanding:

“...that puts their employees at substantive risk”.

Frankly, I don't believe you. I absolutely don't believe that statement. My name is indeed "Thomas", and I can ask nothing better than for someone to prove the contrary. So I'm asking you to explain to me this statement, which I find unbelievable.

[Terry Anne Boyles]

In that point in my testimony, I perhaps wasn't being clear. I was actually speaking in support of the inputs of some of the other charities and the people who were working for them who could be at substantive personal risk. That being said, there are college staff who are working in violence-prone areas of the world, who may on occasion be at risk, but we are more speaking in favour of the points of the other charities that work in much more dangerous situations.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much for clarifying that point.

Now I'll turn to Mr. Davidson, who earlier told us—and once again I'm going to quote him:

Virtually every university head publishes their salary, so transparency is part of your life.

Is it fair on my part to conclude, based on what I just cited, that you agree to publish that? I don't understand. If that's part of your life, where's the problem?

[Paul Davidson]

I'd be happy to elaborate.

First of all, the presidents undertake that. That doesn't mean that every employee with a salary of $100,000 would undertake that.

Secondly, I would just come back to the point about individuals at risk. A number of university senior staff do undertake work overseas at great risk, and we want to make sure that personal security is not compromised.

The third element is around the levels of accountability. I will just say that there are five provinces that require disclosure that are as rigid as or more rigid than this in their legislation, so why create another layer of bureaucracy when--

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Do you really believe that people with experience in public administration like you... Personally, I have sat on the boards of a number of charities and philanthropic organizations.

Are you really going to try to convince us that disclosing this information constitutes a heavy administrative burden?

[Paul Davidson]

What I'm saying is the CRA has a mandate; it has legislation, and it's made important moves on transparency. There is more that can be done, but I just think that this is--

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

If more can be done, how can you be opposed?

Furthermore, there's a flaw in what you've just said. I respectfully submit that to you. You say that these are all salaries of more than $100,000, whereas we want to know the top five salaries.

For example, if I gave a university money, I wouldn't tell it that it had no right to pay anyone more than $250,000. The bill's sponsor, Ms. Guarnieri, has already withdrawn that. We are all in agreement on that. Furthermore, if the university in question pays its top five employees $800,000, $700,000 and $500,000 three times, and if I find that excessive, I can give my money to another university that's more reasonable. That's part of the information to which the person who is preparing to donate his money is entitled.

As Mr. Szabo said so well earlier, ultimately, we're talking here about public assets, about public money. In my view, when it comes to giving information, where it concerns public spending, a tax credit is a public expenditure. I really have no problem with requiring that. I appreciate the fact Ms. Boyles told me that it was a bit theoretical in the case of the Association of Community Colleges of Canada.

I will conclude with a final question for you, Mr. Davidson.

Since you're telling me you have people in the universities who can occasionally work elsewhere, could you—you or the others—cite a single actual case for me, anywhere in the world, where the fact that someone's salary is known has constituted

“a substantive risk”, “safety and security”, “to protect from harm”, “risk to those employees”?

I just read four different quotations from four of you. You have clearly prepared your presentations in order to tell us the same thing. Let's be honest. This is clearly an exaggeration unless you can show me actual cases where that has been a problem. I don't believe it for a second. A person who works in a high-risk country will take measures. They will assume you have money. It's not a matter of publishing the list or not.

You're looking for ways to oppose this, and that's frankly not to your credit.

[Paul Davidson]

If I may respond--and this is based on working with AUCC and is based on seven years of international development experience--we have to take security seriously, and there are--

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm not saying the contrary. You're making a statement here to the effect that publishing salaries will increase... That's your claim.